Post Number:#346 June 19th, 2012, 6:42 pm
Question, did you read my post # 313, Wayne O/1(n)
Plurality began as a result of a bump in the night.
Prior to said bump in the night Plurality was an Impossibility; After said bump in the night said Plurality became more than a mere Possibility, more even than a probability, Plurality became Absolute, Fact.-O
In answer to your question-no, I did not read the post. Unfortunately I haven't had many electrons this June to empower my computer.
On the monism into pluralism issue- a 'bump in the night' entails two objects colliding-and a pre-existing pluralism or dualism minimally speaking. We may learn from the venerable game of asteroids that there were many objects with potential for collision to defend against. Alternatively, in a system of pure monism we are searching for paradigms for explanation of how the appearance of pluralism arises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne wrote; Not True.
I answered that question in post #313
You almost answered the question yourself when you wrote; in a “system” of pure monism”; Instead of a system think in terms of a Static, a Steady State of Quantum Singularity, Individuality.
Prior to The Moment of Creation, the creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have relative, numerical value, the Reality of Everything existed as an Infinitely Large Singularity, said Singularity existing as a Static, a Steady State of Quantum State of Singularity, in which an Untold Number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities existed with none having relative, numerical value, each of the untold number of Individualities, indivisible Singularities existing alone in the Emptiness of it own personal Celestial Sphere..
I tend to go with the paradigm of Plotinus in The Enneads for describing 'The One'. Fundamentally it is not a paradigm that can be described well at all.
I have enjoyed reading Eco's 'Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language' lately. Signs or signals of meanings differ from symbols for meaning. A stop sign is a stop signal perhaps, while a symbol for a stop sign might be something else, somewhere else.
One has language that is comprised of a multi-dimensional field of word-meanings that have values that differ in different contexts-so that is a moving target for finding a static meaning for anything as improbable as the prospect for defining a role for God or The One as an 'other'. It is probably far too much of a temptation to avoid exploiting cosmological analogy for models for paradigm of creating an image or description of what God did or what God was employed doing before (the time exstasis is improbable) he issued a Universe, if there is such a thing as before for an eternal being.
I like physical cosmology quite a lot, yet it is a phenomenon within the experience of being provided for human cognition that is transcended by God. The language adaptations for theology aren't simple to use, and they too are evolving I suppose-if one means changing as a normal 4-dimensional egress rather than a simple Darwinian meaning. Even Biblical literalism has the problem that literal words are symbolic words too-people have trouble interpreting when the Flood occurred, where it happened and even what it was referring to. Words are symbols, and the interpretation of symbols has many variables multi-diemsnionally speaking.
Eco pointed out that originally the word 'symbol' meant to parts of a coin. One could have a half of something and if the other part was obtained the meaning could be gotten. The use of symbolism in language evolved to lose that paradigm of locating half of a meaning in its use for word and object. Etymologies became something more like permutating meanings based on prior meanings historically developed. Even the word 'symbol' was taken to be construed by many as a representation referring to a real thing for itself-even if the thing referred to is an abstract idea such as a political party (e.g. Hammer and Sickle, Swastika).
It becomes challenging to believe that one can select certain words as symbols that accurately represent God. It is simpler to find math symbols that are tools describing relations, proportions and structure of proximal strength of force that is energy or matter as a given for-itself. It is challenging though to point out to some that the abstract practice of mathematical and physical cosmology, though all one may discover through the senses is not all that can exist. Abduction of ideas from contexts may be a way to philosophically construct metaphysics that have some value-even if the meanings are better applied to teleology or eschatology than quantum mechanics.