Ichthus77
February 18, 2026, 4:11am
616
Ichthus77 (formerly She™):
objects never make full contact [me: relations] with each other … are mutually autonomous and enter into relation only in special cases that need to be EXPLAINED rather than ASSUMED [emphasis mine]. …objects cannot make direct contact with each other, but require a third term or mediator for such contact to occur.” p.12
So let me get this straight…we started out with a little tiny dot of way too much order (infinitesimally small singularity is ordered??) that came out of nothing … and ever since, it’s been entropy (disordering) … and yet here we have life, and everything else in the universe which isn’t just hydrogen (self-) arranged in different patterns, but which is super organized way more than just an infinitesimally small dot???
It seems to me that disorder or disharmony needs explanation every bit as much, if not more than, relation needs explanation [edit for clarification: order is the teleology/relation (physical or spiritual function) in the substance (physical or spiritual material), harmony is teleology/relation in the process (physical or spiritual process)] . But people have been saying that for a long time every time they bring up the problem of evil, haven’t they? But they don’t wanna talk about alienation from God these days. Or they do, but the academy gags them.
Also, it is interesting to me how he says the “what it is” and “what it does” are under the umbrella of knowledge (always indirect), but there’s that third thing (not wisdom, he says, but the LOVE… of wisdom) that could never be “known” (even indirectly) because it is always potential (I take that to be infinite?)?
He’s gonna manage this without the Trinity?
Note edited part in bold^
Ichthus77 (formerly She™):
“one of the pillars of OOO: the deep divide or tension between an object and its qualities ” (p. 75). Elsewhere he says they always come together —that implies a distinction and a unity, correct? … but later he talks about a compound object (the sort of nonwithdrawn relationship he earlier says always needs to be explained rather than assumed).
Ichthus77 (formerly She™):
that “third term or mediator”.
Spoiler alert… it’s the new you (85). That’s why your metaphors (that don’t bore you) work for you (81, 82), even if for no one else… and the void you fill is still quite inscrutable.
Dayyyyuuuuummmmm!!! Sick burn!!!
Question on emergence (gain)… How can the underpinnings of function be under rather than simultaneous if the function does not “emerge” without them? (Think with Dr. Craig’s “simultaneous causation”.)
Follow up question to the follow up question - and if it emerges when the underpinnings are there, why hasn’t all the function already emerged? Maybe it’s not all about the underpinnings, and maybe function requires process - a certain kind of process - to unlock?
Why aren’t all the animals imagining and making new objects? They don’t have the underpinnings? Maybe they are/do, how would we know? …or do you actually (but indirectly) (lol jk) think we can create ex nihilo ?