A Mediation in two Voices

The problem with not having an real theory of time I that you miss the entire point of what is shared beyond the body. You therefore have to treat humanity as if it were locked within a simple soul- locked within a single nature. One might improve that nature, but ultimately it remains all about a you and a me – and with no extra, . Or to put it another way the problem of Good substance or eternity as the model is that it creates a medium within which a single looped being is. Time does not do that.

But instead it imposes another impossible on the matter.  That is it put elements into a void-  which might be alright, but worst, far worse it renders tem passive. It makes individual that in which things are. The point about substance as these is not that it guarantees essence in individuals but rather that it, allows of a difference others into them. The is always a temporal dimension matter. The point is after all the change. The theory of substance as it should be understood is then the theory that allows for this matter in many voices. The way I bend the world into a tie or be othered was a passion radiates others and captures them within a time is then different tot the way he infinite universe does it –a and we need to allow for that fact.

So what is time in your model – but the effect each individual has upon other unseen it is the name for it. The effect of a Peter within the idea of a Paul, removed from peter?

Pretty much.

But the point I that this is not enough as there can be no limiting factor to this others. What gives the me in you undermines the me. It does so completely and absolutely.

This is why it has to be understood in terms of a passive synthesis.

Two points then undermine is only if a certain me is the  only possible For me the entire point of substance is that one must think, one must always think othered me's, that is other ways to understand what and where I am. All mode are therefore configured within system of along for others, across he othering surface which is substance. For me the game was therefore enter about the same or the different, which is a crude juxtaposing of elements. It was rather always about what make or mars the  ability o the individual too and fro. That which invests me within a thing is that which gives me pain and actively holds me down. There is the point that some joys are from another light a pain. That which allows be to grow in my ability to effect he world and reach out reach into others and across others (a move which increases my power) is good.

No you don’t-  no borrowing the ideas of others. You claim after all that the essence of the mind is a conatus-  and what is a conatus but the practical assertion of a quanta of power. Tat is a fixing of the amount of power within a being.

A conatus is no such thin. OR better it exists elsewhere It exists at the conjunction of a mind and an body. This conjunction is not synthetic as such as the elements remain apart. The conatus is the registering or the sin=angle principles hat is in each- it is the element therefore communicated, or as another would have it the synthetic union beyond what actually is. It is therefore what that conjunction is within me-  or better the  pricey pay in having a single body as a thing – with this arms and it s legs and its capacity for life.

But there is noting in you r theory ht ties down the ability to change to being a body.

Yes and no. Ingo no. in infinite mode. In society as a whole no. In the individual? That is more tricky? To have a life is to understand oneself with a physical entity. One cannot be within a sequence of growth and change without it. On needs therefore to be placed into a world in having a material presence which is different to one. Moreover one needs within that unified presence the belief (for want of a better word) that what one is and how one is effected is somehow tied to that unity. In being one element I am a fixed element – a single simple thing. I am therefore  at any one moment.

Now this fixing might include the aspiration to change I have no doubt that a caterpillar wants to change into a butterfly. And yet it does that without knowing that a as butterfly it will be utterly different, and will not car for being a caterpillar at all.

But this division is too great and too hard a line The point is that once one is pitched into time s an another- once one is gripped in a passive synthetic of the past then difference tumble n. One becomes needless different and the body is onto enough to stop this happening. I am not the same person as I was before-  all I share my memories. This fact or better the illusion that the memory is ever enough to ensure that it needs no guarantees to being of unity of body in being I do not therefore need the conatus as such.

But that merely replaces one unity – that of being a body for another, that of been a in a single whole of differing- calling it time. It therefore imposes a far more constrictive unity of the world, one that encompasses memory within it and forces all my memories to be of the same kind and jammed into the same element. The point  I Thin I would make here I that the body, I not my unity. I am riveted in it. It is in sense ever real as such. It is therefore within Go d has he has many many ideas. It unity is therefore never absolute. Or their can be pulled out of it. And yet of a thing to be there must be a relation between the othering elements and that thing. The body must change, and the other in it change as well, but there needs to be a relation a conatus in this change in order for a thing to be.

Not to do this is the to pull individual difference directly onto the hard rim of the infinite modes. You argue both things happen in memory

And yet in doing this you fail to understand the real subtitle of what I am saying. Or better you ignore it The logic of my argument and the poison of the infinite modes is that there are a nexus of affininity.

There is one between the essence of an individual(there being placed within the axis of things and the body, call I a conatus.

But there is another between the idea of God and the body, this is the idea God has of very many things. This nexus pitches a thought r better a perception this a multitude of element. Within this many or better as this many a perception is formable. Perception is therefore never tied to one thing It is always tumbles into the many. This  is a challenge. Most perceptions are then alike to y memories they need not be defined within a simple body. They run between them, but this does not mean this running between is al there is.

One the contrary there is a third complex nexus, the one that unties the essence of an individual-  that is the factor of their being with the perception they have. Hey meet in the mind where for  and individual at a certain time and within a certain body the perception of this body and the essence are one and the same. So that to perceive a thing and to being become within the context of an actually existing essence the same element.

These nexi are different – and must be kept as different.

It strikes me the problem you pose is how one can ignore this difference. It is one can form a single simple bond capable of holding all these element together,

You then right as if this idea was unique to latter post Kantian thought. It was not. We knew of it and called it the order of causes. The point of the cause in such an order is that it is little open ended. Causes are within the perception and as necessary changing because on the infinite level they form the way in which a perception is grounded within wider reality. To be a part in the infinite intellect is to be pitched between things and therefore to be within the chaining of causes. And yet as such a cause within the thing itself is not fixed in its purpose. The sun does not directly create the storm but this does no mean that it is not the cause of the storm.

You therefore think you r time as the consequence of this paradox-  the world is full or replete within memory that is this causes awaiting to happen, awaiting to drive reality onwards or at least sideways when taken in into another.

This in terms explains the importance of active and passive your world The passive voice is the voice of that in which the cause erupts. And yet this erupting is itself what allows the cases to be  It is in a sense predates that cause. But all the same it only predates it becomes elsewhere and at another level there is a something quite else, something

thing very different that allows for.

Time was not lacking therefore for us, we merely did not think that it was the point that all difference need to be held. We wanted no way to differ that that – or it alone. more element that he one in God and the mock rebellion of out avoiding the should. What price is hat evolution is one needs to impose a single spiritual journey on everything after this removal> What hen is one needs to gather everything into a single pot a melting pot to being and a truth of that pot/

The eruption beyond the should ought to be the eruption beyond reason and rhyme, beyond the need to unified the nexi that makes a thing.

But think what is gained in that move. You have  theory of affects and a theory o nature that ultimately needs to look for or probably better breed similarities. I accept these need to b fixed and need not be sameness. But they need to be their none the less. And the none the less needs to be produced. This theory of production is then made at the body level. It will therefore relate to  a nexi other than the one in which it manifests. It must do. It therefore lacks its own power. Or better it always appeals elsewhere. M theory need not work that way. I can encompass an enteritis to  nature that in sneer to b confused within individuality as such it is rather an open affair of responding across difference, differences that remain real and vital and powerful. Differences that give power.

But of me the point was in posing the m layers o understand the same is that any act also finds its response. Or better in acting that are level or layer of similarity. there are point that we all share that are always the same, and others where the similarity is made and yet others where in acting it is co it appease real and yet cannot be granted. There is so much texture here. The act then of responding sis the act of as you say somewhere inhabiting the world. That is of finding a level or layer to differ within and through and across. It is therefore pointer of difference and the method of being as different.

But you approach which has something on much going for it, still founders I think of the fact that the difference as you posit it is ultimately derivative. It is ultimately movement and rest. This is the supreme engine of your difference. It as an idea will accord to time/ It is thereof only thinkable in the difference of time. And therefore will eventually bend back into my theory.

Only if you forget the order of things. Yi read me here in the light of my great contemporaries. They though of something else and called it energy, something hat bound and limited movement and rest. Movement and rest and energy were to  a me punned. As such they were sanding n the lip of a thing. The moment relate was at once bound in causes and so a single mixed element in itself (this is the fixing of movement you note), that is the moment it imposes texture, and yet at the same time and through the same recioprisocity  in which it was given it way the point of dispersion to another. A movement for itself was the point that made every other thing in the universe differ it disrupted them even though there were themselves also movements (and therefore were themselves disrupted)On can isolate it therefore in the context of every else, and taking all matter say thing pulse is movement. It in the world was a thing. But then it as it effected the world in the pulse itself in itself was no thing at all, it was if you looked at it in the world the mere way of the pulse pulsed through matter and made or drove difference sideways. It was therefore within and not within the world.

If you like it was not simple thing. It was itself the initial nexus The world of the individual which holding the differing properties in communication then lies on the one side and the world of causes (and the idea of god0 leis on the other side (it in all h world0. It must

And it must be allowed for in both.

Is you are saying that motion and rest included different.

\I was at the cusp of two and moved of into two others. This is the pointer of it-  the point in which it is no longer what it was.

Well maybe The point is sill that you burden a body in a been g to o much ? Why should a body contain one unity ? Why is it not allowing many all the time as it gives an individual.

This of course comes down to how one understands time. You want to swim up stream to  a point where motion and rest are founded upon A single synthetic  that then encompasses in a single glance of God all the element s imposed within a body. For me these elements are only untie (and I mean only) within actual existence. It makes therefore no sense o impose this supposed previous unity in God. The unity one has must assume ones reality in the first place. My body might therefore contain all these difference – it certain does. And yet  this containing does not mean on e needs to prethink in a virtual plane all these elements one might be. In the world of actual existing I will leave then as echoes  within what I am, and not virtualizing  hidden fields awaiting anything. Actual existence never waits and never lacks.

But does this not beg the problem ? For me the problem was how to understand the time in which everything was caught-  ho to understand how these elements of differing were within a me all along/ The fold was therefore the means in which this was given. it was the pointer of difference, the point at which difference erupted into  the body.

No for me this so wrong in two ways. Ultimately (ironically it believes too much in the individual and in unified substance. Neither of these can be so simply given. The individual is never in control of what it is and what tumbles into it for the body. The re is no need to encompass an individuality capable of allowing for all the difference within it as the start of the procedure is needless. The point is the other really is other-  and there is nothing within a me that can allow for it. Morality is not enough (the moral universe). But either is immorality that is the imposition of a single cipher individual and abstract name in with a thing happens. The body is the point of difference beyond the me  it greatness nothing about what happens within it. T merely holds elements down into a time and rivets away – it does so without the need to  a name. The name is then en-housed within the body and which the context of a set of experience. To name an individual and say they are a one of them is therefore allowed to have allowed too much (it is an effect of the passive synthetic).

On the other hand the unity of substance was never to impose a single world of choices. The point about substance is that it differs differently. We need not then have one nexus of change within all individual is caught-  a single prism a means of unfolding. What is about hit us breeds its own similarities and loops within us. We ought never to attempt then to create a medium within which this element is held down or restricted.

On the contrary to do so is to miss the vital mutely dimension element in everything. A even a good act and has limits  points stops being good (merriment id therefore an abstract and not a real thing0 likewise most evils are not utterly s, not even for us and all our minds. Moreover the scope or sense of sharing is not fixed. It is a problem It is never clear what or where I am sharing as the sharing out to be though in a plane that eludes reality . This is the point.. One cannot therefore unravel that or loop it into to in a single thread.

To do so is to miss its creation.

Remember that the theory of difference is a theory of morality not because God could choose the best of all worlds because the theory of exhaustion that makes that choice possible pulls one beyond the single important thing in life- that it is mutual. One is only moral in knowing all the option and having an access point for this uniformity. Morality is the imposition of this single looped access, This judgment of God on being. Reality as I understand It eludes such morality as it eludes the point in which the single axis even as a difference is given. It is genuine poly vocal and so not open to a single looped judgement.

Well maybe. It still think one needs to account for time as an element – it not a thing. It is not enough to argue that its effect are within another and through another. It needs to be understood as a dimension of its own. But perhaps in this we are simple either side of a divide in philosophy opened in Leibniz and made absolute by Kant – a divide we have not crossed.

Maybe…