- Reaction score
...first 'division of nature' as that which can be seen, and that which is not —
Are you sure? Wiki states the first division as: "That which creates and is not created"
From what i've read there, this dude was deemed heretical (unsurprisingly, considering some of his writings.) Still, apparently, he was seriously influential.
Thanks for bringing him up though, i'd never even heard of em.
hmmm... I think relative awareness would equal consciousness, because "absolute awareness" would have to be (by definition) outside spacetime.If it is possible to assert relative awareness, one can also speculate absolute awareness, which is the same consciousness, in one instance operating under certain constraints.
You're right in that we can speculate on an absolute awareness, but I think we can't imagine it. We can't even really imagine a 5th dimension to spacetime, our brains being suited only to 3 dimensions... but to imagine anything outside of spacetime altogether is like.... ????
Sounds very Kantian (due credit to Berkley as well).. although, Kant was basically working from an absolute-Newtonian mechanic, which is not relational.Eriugena was getting close to saying each finite consciousness 'creates' the Cosmos it sees,
lolz !!! so i guess trees falling in empty forests make sounds after all !! heh hehNow there's a thought! Ride with me for a moment ...
Suppose 'I' exist because I am being observed by •, so the All collapses into a singularity, a rational and reflective singularity, a (my)self, and a self-observing (my)self.
Such a (my)self always remains a mystery to the observing (my)self, because stripped of its accidents and contingency, it ceases to be a 'self' as an object, a singularity ...
(OMG ... so when the nuns at Sunday School told me 'He's watching everything you do' they were right! If He wasn't, I wouldn't be here! Lordy ... HE'S WATCHING ME RIGHT NOW! )