Active and Passive

Active and Passive are not necessarily opposite states, although the etymologies have evolved to present the concepts as opposites. The standard use of the terms are to represent, in their simplest application, states of motion and rest, where motion and rest not only describe physical processes such as movement in the world, but also conceptual processes where adjectives are applied to objects not limited to physical, such as those things that are caused or effected, and Active and Passive then represent the process of describing a concept during its change and interpretation. What is not affected can be considered motionless in that there is no observable change in its state. What does not cause is also considered motionless in that it does not produce an influence.

An active state can be considered one that induces an effect in something else, such that the original state of that thing effected would produce no motion or change in its original state unless a causal relationship sustains an influence between the two related entities. An Active state is also considered to be that which is induced with an effect such that another has influenced its change.

Only where there is absolute rest can a causal sequence begin, just as only where there is absolute motion can a sequence of effects end. To move eternally is to neither be caused or effected since for change to take place in movement it must rest. Likewise, to be motionless is to be neither a causal influence nor influenced as an effect. Active and Passive states are equally impossible.

Beyond the conventional use of the terms we can see that the two can be somewhat comparable rather than existing as definite opposites. A passive cause is equatable to an active effect, or vice-versa, as a causal relationship is infered rather than being an observable process in the world. For to say that something is only a cause and not an effect is to deny its origins as an effect of a previous cause, and so on. Therefore Active and Passive are synonomous states where no difference can be determined, since nothing is entirely motioneless nor is anything only always moving. This is how Passive and Active are to be understood.

Active and Passive are not descriptions of the physical world. The world is inert and affords no essential change in its structure, as its structure is both at motion and at rest, neither passive nor active.

It must be something else which we must discover.

I propose that the realm of Activity and Passivity exists in the coordination of conscious effort in attaining intentional and transcendent motivation for meaning. As the world exists by itself as fundamentally unchangeable Being, whereby it is neither moving or at rest, causing or effected, it therefore follows that the distinction between Passive and Active originates during motivational volition through conscious intentions for the world and its objects. Passivity is, therefore, the forfeiture of choice and the denial of meaning such that no reason or purpose is accounted for an object, so that it exists in its original inertia. Activity is the assimilation of meaning upon an object whereby it is described as functional toward an end, the end being the transcendent motivational intention for the object.

It follows that Activity and Passivity are subjunctive modes in ethical processes. Neither exist in the absence of conscious choice, but neither does conscious choice change the world such that objects can be distinguished as either a cause or an effect. Both are transcendent features in human ethical existence and become opposing concepts only through internal coordination.

To deny is to be passive. To engage is to be active. But neither is denial or engagement a property of the world as we have seen that both states do not involve motion or rest, cause or effect.

Any ideas?

Well, yeah! I can remain passive and induce activity in someone, and my remaining passive is also a kind of activity where I choose to remain passive. But you must remember that where my choice of choosing is active but my state of remaining is still passive. Therefore, active and passive will always be opposites. Don’t try to confuse for no reason at all. I mean if you have a reason fine, but it doesn’t seem you have any valid reason to confuse.

I don’t think so. The body is neither active nor passive as it extends both as a cause and an effect, and is present in the world with total inertia, being neither “moved” or “stopped,” “beginning” or “ending.” As such, a body is both passive and active simultaneously since as a force it exists as both an effect and as an influence. As Passive and Active are understood as opposites, to be in a state of one or the other is to relinquish its force as both the cause and effect, and in doing this we suppose that Passivity is a resistence to being moved, just as Active is a resistence to remaining motioneless. Movement and still-ness, as indications for being active or passive, are not actual states of substance, but rather modes in which sensibility distinguishes itself from the sensible. To experience an object and its location, as it is related to other objects in other locations, is not a revelation of separate bodies…“there-ness” does not exist as opposed to “here-ness.” Rather, the mode of this extension invests itself in sensibility of “me-ness” and “that-ness,” which are products of the mind…the most perfect and far reaching type of extension. The “I” is, perhaps, the only suspension of the whole substance during the temporary breach of cause and effect, in which an entity “steps out” of the chain and “see’s itself seeing” the extensive properties of Being, where it can call one thing a cause and another an effect. You see, existence is so tightly packed that “two” cannot exist and the sensibility of time and space is transcendent to the objects which exist in need of time and space. Time, space, and mind are transcendent to pure Being.

When bodies interact in the world the forces which are transfered during influence dissolve the distinction between separation, and the effected body is equal to the body that caused the influence, so that to say “this” body affects “that” body is to suppose a temporary break in the single unifying force of extension, when in reality there is only the force of influence through extension. This is to say that apparently “separate” entities do not distinguish their individuality by occupying different spaces, which is impossible, but rather that the description of body as “singular” is to temporarily hypothesize it as either only a cause or effect, in turn, being impossible. Extension is not to be thought of as “placement” because extension is “at no place.” Again, the mistake of differentiating location from total occupancy provides for the hypothetical error of assuming that distance and close-ness are distinct. They are not. There is only one existing substance and its expansive properties are infered rationally as cause and effect, being present before and behind location, space, distance, and placement. This is a product of the mind.

So, Bennajain, I don’t think you remain “passive” while enforcing activity in another Being, no more than I would suggest that you can be “active” while inducing passivity in another Being. This is why I have moved these concepts outside of the physicalistic realms completely.

BennaJain is not “body as influenced or influence, causing or effected.”

BennaJain is “mind as inference, through suspension, of extension as either cause or effect, but not simultaneously.”

It follows that BeenaJain is Mind which is not BeenaJain as Body. There is no BeenaJain as Body, there is only Substance as extended Body and as sensible to BeenaJain as Mind.

In short, you are God because you transcend cause and effect.

I bet you like that, don’t you?

Ah, but there is no “but my state,” you see. You are Choice which transcends caused and effected Being. You don’t exist as state, you infer “state” by applying time/space categories to substance. You are ontologically distinct from physical Being which exists in no need of cause or effect, as it is both, and therefore neither.

Cool, eh?

Epoche

I would agree with you that active and passive forces can only be defined as such by their ever changing relationship to each other. I agree with the following old quote:

It is an effect I believe because consciousness is unnecessary for the continuation of the laws of nature. the results that happen we call existence are the lawful effects of other unconscious effects.

Active “Action” as opposed to passive “reaction” I believe can only result from conscious intent as you said.

But this is not to say that the active and passive principles do not objectively exist. I believe they do in the balance of Yin and Yang. The active/passive, male/female principles exist as necessary for example in sexual reproduction. the man is the conductor of the active force of our being while the woman is conducting the passive. It may not look that way as far as the results of societal effects when she’s hitting him over the head with a bat, but from a higher perspective, she is the conductor of the passive force.

How consciousness effects the relationship between Yin and Yang is another question.

Epoche, you totally misunderstood. And don’t project your insecurities upon me, perhaps you yourself would like to be labelled as God, not me. It’s the person who is a thief, a liar, a cheat, who projects that others are so. So don’t go and say that I am God and like hearing that, just 'cause YOU would like to hear so. Okay? And as for activity and passivity, of course they will always be relative in case of things that have life, but for lifeless things we can safely assume that, a stone lying by the roadside is inactive or passive. No one suggested that this inactive stone cannot bring about activeness like a collision or accident, it can, but the stone itself is inactive. So, would you call this stone God by your own argument?

Yes ma’am.

None of these exist. The thief does not exist because nothing can be owned, and therefore nothing can be stolen. The liar does not exist because one cannot tell the truth, one can only make statements that are correct or incorrect providing the relationship between premise and conclusion is coherent. The cheater does not exist because in playing a game, if the rules are not followed the game is altered, and therefore the man with the hidden card is no longer playing poker, as the game poker involves no hidden cards.

There’s no way to tell, I’m affraid. If the stone can make choices then yes, it escapes the causal network of Being and is suspended. It is no longer a sensible object, but rather that which creates sensibility by projecting meaning upon Being. By choosing, the instrument of nothingness takes effect in existence and objects lose their positivity. Remember, all knowledge is based from the original negation of some Being, that is, all things are all things in the absence of consciousness; a rock is a spoon is a house is a roller-skate. Only upon the positing of meaning do objects becomes sensible, without which everything exists as both A and not-A.

Oh come on! You know you want it, girl!

Denial is not a river in Africa.

You took the words right outta my mouth, Epoche.

Hey, wait a minute.

[scratches head]

Think what you like, you’re just trying to project on me how you want to be seen. I find it very very funny if not laughable. It’s like blaming me for something that is entirely your fault. :smiley: