This is obvious,
It’s the same answer as the chicken and the egg.
Its always the egg.
Before things we call words, animals species of all kinds were engaged in communications of various kinds.
Before homonids distinguished specific words they were already equipped with the ability to point to objects and make sounds.
On the level of one life, before a child knows a single word they already have the brain capable of understanding one.
So on both the level of a single life, and an entire species the ability to understand words precedes the apprehension of words
In the beginning was the Signal, and the Signal was the Source, and the Signal was with the Source, and the Signal became the Sink.
sink is receiver/storage of information/message/signal that also transmits, like a work of art. all of creation has various ways of being a sink in general revelation terms.
because God exists his essence, as Uncreated Creator (Word) he is all three: source/sink/signal — timelessly (whole), but in time (subsumed in whole)
the medium that is the message is Jesus, ultimately communicated on the cross
we are the sink - the intended receivers of the message, but the seeds (word) get sown funny & the message gets garbled (noise)
he became the sink – like us — to demonstrate what it means to send/receive without noise
cuz if we receive it correctly, we will also transmit it. like cb radios. i dunno. all metaphors break down.
he did not need us in order to be the source/signal/sink, because he is complete within the Trinity, besides all sequential time is subsumed in him simultaneously—but, we are sinks receiving from the overflow. when we are transmitting the signal from the source (vine), there is less noise in our signals (branches)
I am only somewhat familiar with Shannon’s information theory.
the sink shows up in a lot of systems. Photosynthesis has a source where light is turned into food and a sink where that food is stored. botany.one/2018/09/source-sink-or-both/
The analogy is appropriate as derived from the light, and that energy ‘sinks’ to the synthetic level of the level of cognitively developed energy, risen from it’s ‘phenomenal’ transformation unto the ‘sunk’ , invisibility of the color -green.
From the invisible sense of the white, whose image can not be imagined as a transparency( wittgenstein) - to it’s synthetic- cognitively. ‘reduced’ green, phenomenally .
The cognitive impossibility of a transcended transparent white, imposes on a an admixture between blue and yellow, another boundary, that the ‘dialectical limit’ imposed by Kant, can be sensed as invariably related.
Such may resemble as propositional foundations to the idea of: ‘trans imminance’.
That concept builds on such, as more than conceptually illusive , reduced reflective resourceful images. These objects, will be able to utilize properties of dispersion , while the unelected , white transparencies can not.
This ‘realization’ guaranties the underlying forms predating even the ‘Metamorphosis of Narcissus’, as per the basic myth of defining reflection as a matter of perception over that of the synchronous definition of conscious thought it’s self.
How these permeate as underlying prescriptions , are basically as forms as building blocks within an aesthetic formulation, ard indeed, more prophylactic intents to an aesthetic for balance , to further the virtual object of the aesthetic for it’s self as a stepping stone to it’s self- for the objective Other.
so I don’t know what you’re saying but this is what it triggers. You’re saying that God is whole (One), mother, father, child, in family/community. There can be no unity if there are not clearly defined boundaries between those things that are in union. There is a mutual serving between each one and respecting between each one—self/otherness, switching places like a square dance. Their colors therefore all show up together perfectly in white or black (unity), but they each retain their identity. Who they are as an individual also shows who they are as a member of the group.
That’s kind of beautiful. I kinda wanna make that happen but I kind of think only God can do it. That whole vine/branch thing.
I am merely repeating that God, the consistent with the energy of the pure unreflected light, that light which can not be thought of as a transparency , because the phenominal limit that bars that Phenomenal Spirit of God, to be understood through that limit, by reason , still can overcome that boundary by exegesis where the limitless energy( love) can miraculously transcend that . through the hearts of man.
True, a God can only do that, but, a receptive fabric has to accept it. Man , through Faith, is, in that ‘sense’ is a co-creator, without the need to choose between God, and his apparent absence, that comes only through the insensible.
Seeing without that sensibility, but through an unbounded , Absolute conviction, is only possible by the transmission above the rational limit. .
In this way, such a belief, ceases to be reactive to an automatic reflection’ since the white light can not BS conceived as a transparent mirror which excludes the receptivity, only that transperency can bring about.
Two hearts offer each other that with both reflecting truth on either side.
The crystal clear is not perceivable and as so, the white becomes merely a ground for a reflection, emanating from the middle ground of faith . That is why that appears as a limit between man and God.
If I understand you correctly, may be better to say that we only sense the visible or audible or (warming?), these light and sound waves being mere metaphors for general and special revelation, but there is so much more outside what can be grasped empirically via the senses/intuition, or inferred via reason (expanding our senses beyond their reach to fill in the placeholders held by our intuitive grasp of wholeness). You call it exegesis instead of heuristics now. Correctly interpreting general and special revelation.
Worthy of repetition… if I do say so myself. Over lol.
Oh, I forgot to say Thing-in-Itself somewhere in there.
Are you down with Spinoza & panentheism? Would he say all these waves have their being in necessary Being and so do not make Being finite and are still contingent, or does he say more? Still haven’t fully studied him.
“Are you down with Spinoza & panentheism? Would he say all these waves have their being in necessary Being and so do not make Being finite and are still contingent, or does he say more? Still haven’t fully studied him.”
I wouldn’t be all that concerned since necessity and contingency are logically tied before a level of sufficient apprehension( replacing sufficient reason) And that is not to equivocate a pantheistic indefinite bound edge( between 2 planes or reference, with it’s definitive signification
)
Wait will look that up), since pantheism implies at least in some way, more of a limited limitless then an unlimited limit.
Just a hunch but Spinoza was more in Leibnetz’ sphere than out of it.
See if this ‘hunch’ measures up to an analysis of Spinoza’s narrative on ‘substane’ :
"a. Spinoza’s Account of Substance
Spinoza offers a definition of substance on the very first page of the Ethics. He writes: “By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself… “ (E1d3). Spinoza follows Descartes (and the tradition) in defining substance as “in itself” or as an ultimate subject. Correspondingly, he follows the tradition in defining ‘mode’ as that which is had or borne by another; as Spinoza puts it a mode is “that which is in another…” (E1d5). For a discussion of the scholastic-Aristotelian roots of Spinoza’s definition see Carriero 1995. Spinoza also follows Descartes in thinking that i) attributes are the principle properties of substance, ii) among those attributes are thought and extension, iii) all other properties of a substance are referred through, or are ways of being, that attribute, and iv) God exists and is a substance. Here the agreement ends.
The first obvious divergence from Descartes is found at E1P5. For Descartes there are many extended substances (at least on the pluralist interpretation) and many minds. Spinoza, however, thinks this is dead wrong. At E1P5 Spinoza argues that substance is unique in its kind—there can be only one substance per attribute. This fact about substance (in combination with a number of other metaphysical theses) has far-reaching consequences for his account of substance.
It follows, Spinoza argues at E1P6, that to be a substance is to be causally isolated, on the grounds that i) there is only one substance per kind or attribute and ii) causal relations can obtain only between things of the same kind. Causal isolation does not, however, entail causal impotence. An existing substance must have a cause in some sense, but as causally isolated its cause cannot lie in anything outside itself. Spinoza concludes that substance “will be the cause of itself…it pertains to the nature of a substance to exist” (E1P7). Not only is a substance the cause of itself, but Spinoza later tells us that it is the immanent cause of everything that is in it (E1P18). Spinoza continues, in E1P8, by claiming that “every substance is necessarily infinite.” In general Spinoza argues that if there is only one substance per attribute, then substance cannot be limited since limitation is a causal notion and substances are causally isolated. Last, Spinoza makes the case that substances are indivisible. He argues in E1P12-13 that if substance were divisible, it would be divisible either into parts of the same nature or parts of a different nature. If the former, then there would be more than one substance of the same nature which is ruled out by E1P5. If the latter, then the substance could cease to exist which is ruled out by E1P7; consequently substance cannot be divided".
Do you put Spinoza closer to panentheism? The vocab you’re using is a bit abstract (for me) without examples to prime/trigger the meaning … only takes me a few to get my bearings. You are putting the cookies where people (lol just me) need wings to reach ‘em (right now) lol.
Yes and the same could be asked of retucense, or forbearance, for temporarily mixed signals as far as what came before or after, the purported ‘fast’
Just avoiding embarrassment over thin-skinned emotions, mostly on my part i presume, however any possible damage control is necessary in light of the preceding. ( that one may nit necessarily follow the other, at least schematically if not temporarily.
The reason fir my extended break in my fast tendency to react in the case of the pantheistic debate over .spin oh za, accented by information gathered by hunches, ( where me no can gain credence by allusion to his a-priori method )- and that by now should be accepted as true.
Confession: I may have read Spinoza so long ago I barely remember what I read, or if I was too wet-behind-the-ears to correctly interpret. Hence my questions
