Some time ago, I was in correspondence with a Californian named Jeff. Jeff had a more than casual interest in ontology (in our awareness to presence) and how it might affect popular metaphysics. Continually, he advanced some very challenging questions.
Jeff enquired about the qualities of perception: Do we really exist in our perception of time and space; and in this regard, how can we know what is tangible and intangible and as it must eventually relate to the monotheism expedient? These are difficult questions, even for the most astute philosopher. But after considerable thought and a sudden realization of how Reality and Actuality might be misperceived, the following was forthcoming from my own sense of relative cognizance.
At my computer desk and contemplating the cognitive essence of what is real and unreal, of the intangibility in metaphysics, and of life and life’s propensity to seek immortality, surprisingly, the definitive qualities of Reality and Actuality became obvious, displacing traditional values; for, immediately outside my patio door, the answer appeared in qualitative and quantitative perception.
The quality of Reality and Actuality was reflected from a flowerpot suspended some 14 feet away from my desk, hanging in the patio beneath an arbor support. Suddenly, qualitative perception of the flowerpot presence became suspect; for, the immutability in quantitative measure and its importance to qualitative perception forced this exegete to a startling and incontestable conclusion. Ontologically, I could not concurrently exist in the presence of what I thought I was seeing! Amazingly, error in the perception of presence became obvious; what was perceived to be a present object was a present object only in the popular sense; for, in truth, phenomenon presence can never be intellectualized in other than a past state. Its presence can be perceived only as a past incident, historically reflected to cognizance, however aorist in time and space. The flowerpot was present in actuality, but my perception could be described as reality only.
Why?
To gain proper time and space perspective, with present and past comprehension, we should use a relative model to establish cognizance in quantitative indisputability.
With telescope assistance, we can intercept galaxy light from the far fringes of space, some 14,000,000,000,000 (fourteen billion, [14 x 1012]) light years distant from remote earth, a remoteness situated far out on the Milky Way’s Galaxy spiral. In other words, each reflected iota from distant space fringes requires 14 billion years to arrive at earthling receptivity. We observe the distant Galaxy, though it might not really exist after so long a time; yet, its light has presence. How? To be sure, we receive light reflection some fourteen billion years tardy to the actual light emission. Now, as Einstein proposed, light and time are relative; his theory is true; therefore, whatever distance light must travel, a certain time lapse is indicated, whether fourteen billion light years or 14 standard feet millisecond. Scientifically indisputable, the flower pot just 14 feet away cannot be seen in its present state; for, I must see it in retrospect, in historicity. Everything received by sentient means (the body senses) is sensed in historical recall, in retrospect. Once awareness to the limits of sentience is understood, then, we can make a definitive distinction between Actuality and Reality. We cannot live in the present, only in the historicity provided by sentience recall.
In a related question, contingent on answers to the first proposition, this exegete would add: noumenon (intuited by the mind) and phenomenon (known by the senses) permit our ontological wonderment and existence awareness. In the philosophy of Kant, an object such as the word usage ‘soul’ cannot be known through perception, although its existence can be demonstrated. By way of explanation, an experienced phenomenon differs from concepts noumenonally encouraged by Bible historicity; religion defined soul has a definition whose modernly perceived equivalent resists separation from its legal-historical reality. Intuitively, we sense an animated world through the noumenon, but source composition is received in bits and pieces, proven by lapsed time in the light-speed phenomenon. If we call phenomenon ‘recognized Reality,’ then, we are correct; for, the light-speed idiom inheres only historical perception—disputing the Reality mistakenly adopted into modern language usage. For, Reality is only recall.
Actuality, then, must mean ‘implied presence,’ inasmuch as we have established Reality to be historical and ‘implied presence’ being the only definition left for Actuality. Noumenal is a mental exercise--neither Actuality or Reality--not created through sentience but through mental innovation--whereas Actuality and Reality are perceived through the senses, and thus, phenomenal. Of course, both Actuality and Reality measure sentient impact, for both register phenomenon perception—but Actuality is transient in presence while Reality has permanence in historicity. Thus, we come to grips with the legal-historical basis (truth from repetition) for the noumenonal ‘soul’, which survivalist coinage is fed by invented desideratum and not to be confused with sentient existentialism.
About ideas and ideation: Kant observations seem appropriate, “that the ‘idea’ is transcendent and non-empirical.” That is: ‘idea’ is just that, an intellectual creation not proven by experiment or experience and thus noumenal. Once produced via senses cognizance, it can become an object and thus phenomenal. This author perceives ‘ideation’ only as a created image brought to mental awareness, not yet validated by sentience. A perception can assume Reality only in sentient recall, a product of previous evaluation, thus historicity, and thus Reality.
Distinction between the qualities of Reality and Actuality, as with any philosophical study, must eventually regress to the age-old study of ethics and ethos and finally to the legal-historical incertitude surrounding metaphysics; for, study must address the existential awareness whole; therefore, legal-historical awareness must be brought forward to satisfy Actuality-Reality questions as they might affect quantitative and qualitative contribution to the metaphysical schedule and thus to time frame perception.
About Bible history: the Bible can represent only legal-historical (repeated articulation) Reality. Bible exposition appears in Actuality; but like a great stage play, its principals and stage props exist only in Reality. Bible legal-historicity can be defined as an accepted truth only from repeated homilies and duplicated exposition--much as World History. One is as provable as the other. Did George Washington live? Did Neanderthals live? According to legal-historical accounts, they did live! Did Jesus Christ live in the last Age? Did Adam live in the first Age? According to legal-historicity, they did live in those designated Ages! However, we cannot prove any existence beyond legal-historical sanctions.
If the Messianic advent was phenomenal, then modernist utility must be defined as noumenal. Our problem, in modernist application, is in trying to make Reality become Actuality. Such is impossible, of course; like perceiving water to freely run uphill! Actuality can become Reality but not vice-versa. The only recourse for modern religion is to adopt the Messiah phenomenon via noumenal expedience. The Bible story is timely-episodes sensitive; therefore, we can deduce the Bible story to be conformed in Ten Ages increments, each antique to its successor, each lapsed into Reality.
About the Ten Ages Reality and Paul's cognizance of an Age Actuality: Yes, Paul was well aware of Daniel's Ten Ages and limit to Covenant longevity. Yet, Paul was almost casual in his mention of Ages. At II Timothy 1:9, he intimated two Ages only casually; but does this account represent the entire Ages scope? I think not!. Jesus also mentioned Two Ages, but not exactly the same as Paul’s Two Ages. The ‘previous Age’ in Paul's A.D. 68 time, at II Timothy 1:9, was the Messianic ‘age to come’ uttered by Jesus in Matthew 12:32 (summer of A.D. 28). But Paul was in the 10th Age when he wrote the II Timothy epistle. He was in the 9th Age when he wrote the I Timothy epistle. Compare “until the appearing” in I Timothy 6:14 with “now made manifest by the appearing” in II Timothy 1:10. Paul lived unto Parousia! My book, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, gives much more detail concerning the Messianic reign and its place in the Actuality and Reality arena.
And about your God-breath enquiry: ‘Theopneustos’ means ‘God Inspired,’ or ‘Inbreathed of God,’ but in Greek Reality. If Daniel visions were inspired in Actuality, then we can say in retrospect: the Ten Ages concept now exist Theopneustos in Reality. As far as I know, this author is the only one ever to detect Ten Ages in scripture (and to subsequently posit his findings for critique). Ten Ages, as the whole of God-covenant extensions in time and space, exist in Reality not in Actuality; therefore, they are not relative to the modernist futurism! Consistent with age-old metaphysical conceptions, man continues to major in a minor; predictably he substitutes Actuality for Reality’s immutability. In conclusion: no, we do not live in the present; we cannot live in the present. Our mental efficacy is not sufficient to bring us into the present; we can only think we have total awareness. In words of the renowned philosopher, Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” And another great philosopher, Sarte, describes ‘existentialism’ as man’s propensity to conform himself in roles most advantageous to his narcissistic value of Actuality and Reality. Habitually, man circumvents the truth in science and semantics, opts for opinion and word usage, and thus deceives himself of his true nature.
Jeff enquired about the qualities of perception: Do we really exist in our perception of time and space; and in this regard, how can we know what is tangible and intangible and as it must eventually relate to the monotheism expedient? These are difficult questions, even for the most astute philosopher. But after considerable thought and a sudden realization of how Reality and Actuality might be misperceived, the following was forthcoming from my own sense of relative cognizance.
At my computer desk and contemplating the cognitive essence of what is real and unreal, of the intangibility in metaphysics, and of life and life’s propensity to seek immortality, surprisingly, the definitive qualities of Reality and Actuality became obvious, displacing traditional values; for, immediately outside my patio door, the answer appeared in qualitative and quantitative perception.
The quality of Reality and Actuality was reflected from a flowerpot suspended some 14 feet away from my desk, hanging in the patio beneath an arbor support. Suddenly, qualitative perception of the flowerpot presence became suspect; for, the immutability in quantitative measure and its importance to qualitative perception forced this exegete to a startling and incontestable conclusion. Ontologically, I could not concurrently exist in the presence of what I thought I was seeing! Amazingly, error in the perception of presence became obvious; what was perceived to be a present object was a present object only in the popular sense; for, in truth, phenomenon presence can never be intellectualized in other than a past state. Its presence can be perceived only as a past incident, historically reflected to cognizance, however aorist in time and space. The flowerpot was present in actuality, but my perception could be described as reality only.
Why?
To gain proper time and space perspective, with present and past comprehension, we should use a relative model to establish cognizance in quantitative indisputability.
With telescope assistance, we can intercept galaxy light from the far fringes of space, some 14,000,000,000,000 (fourteen billion, [14 x 1012]) light years distant from remote earth, a remoteness situated far out on the Milky Way’s Galaxy spiral. In other words, each reflected iota from distant space fringes requires 14 billion years to arrive at earthling receptivity. We observe the distant Galaxy, though it might not really exist after so long a time; yet, its light has presence. How? To be sure, we receive light reflection some fourteen billion years tardy to the actual light emission. Now, as Einstein proposed, light and time are relative; his theory is true; therefore, whatever distance light must travel, a certain time lapse is indicated, whether fourteen billion light years or 14 standard feet millisecond. Scientifically indisputable, the flower pot just 14 feet away cannot be seen in its present state; for, I must see it in retrospect, in historicity. Everything received by sentient means (the body senses) is sensed in historical recall, in retrospect. Once awareness to the limits of sentience is understood, then, we can make a definitive distinction between Actuality and Reality. We cannot live in the present, only in the historicity provided by sentience recall.
In a related question, contingent on answers to the first proposition, this exegete would add: noumenon (intuited by the mind) and phenomenon (known by the senses) permit our ontological wonderment and existence awareness. In the philosophy of Kant, an object such as the word usage ‘soul’ cannot be known through perception, although its existence can be demonstrated. By way of explanation, an experienced phenomenon differs from concepts noumenonally encouraged by Bible historicity; religion defined soul has a definition whose modernly perceived equivalent resists separation from its legal-historical reality. Intuitively, we sense an animated world through the noumenon, but source composition is received in bits and pieces, proven by lapsed time in the light-speed phenomenon. If we call phenomenon ‘recognized Reality,’ then, we are correct; for, the light-speed idiom inheres only historical perception—disputing the Reality mistakenly adopted into modern language usage. For, Reality is only recall.
Actuality, then, must mean ‘implied presence,’ inasmuch as we have established Reality to be historical and ‘implied presence’ being the only definition left for Actuality. Noumenal is a mental exercise--neither Actuality or Reality--not created through sentience but through mental innovation--whereas Actuality and Reality are perceived through the senses, and thus, phenomenal. Of course, both Actuality and Reality measure sentient impact, for both register phenomenon perception—but Actuality is transient in presence while Reality has permanence in historicity. Thus, we come to grips with the legal-historical basis (truth from repetition) for the noumenonal ‘soul’, which survivalist coinage is fed by invented desideratum and not to be confused with sentient existentialism.
About ideas and ideation: Kant observations seem appropriate, “that the ‘idea’ is transcendent and non-empirical.” That is: ‘idea’ is just that, an intellectual creation not proven by experiment or experience and thus noumenal. Once produced via senses cognizance, it can become an object and thus phenomenal. This author perceives ‘ideation’ only as a created image brought to mental awareness, not yet validated by sentience. A perception can assume Reality only in sentient recall, a product of previous evaluation, thus historicity, and thus Reality.
Distinction between the qualities of Reality and Actuality, as with any philosophical study, must eventually regress to the age-old study of ethics and ethos and finally to the legal-historical incertitude surrounding metaphysics; for, study must address the existential awareness whole; therefore, legal-historical awareness must be brought forward to satisfy Actuality-Reality questions as they might affect quantitative and qualitative contribution to the metaphysical schedule and thus to time frame perception.
About Bible history: the Bible can represent only legal-historical (repeated articulation) Reality. Bible exposition appears in Actuality; but like a great stage play, its principals and stage props exist only in Reality. Bible legal-historicity can be defined as an accepted truth only from repeated homilies and duplicated exposition--much as World History. One is as provable as the other. Did George Washington live? Did Neanderthals live? According to legal-historical accounts, they did live! Did Jesus Christ live in the last Age? Did Adam live in the first Age? According to legal-historicity, they did live in those designated Ages! However, we cannot prove any existence beyond legal-historical sanctions.
If the Messianic advent was phenomenal, then modernist utility must be defined as noumenal. Our problem, in modernist application, is in trying to make Reality become Actuality. Such is impossible, of course; like perceiving water to freely run uphill! Actuality can become Reality but not vice-versa. The only recourse for modern religion is to adopt the Messiah phenomenon via noumenal expedience. The Bible story is timely-episodes sensitive; therefore, we can deduce the Bible story to be conformed in Ten Ages increments, each antique to its successor, each lapsed into Reality.
About the Ten Ages Reality and Paul's cognizance of an Age Actuality: Yes, Paul was well aware of Daniel's Ten Ages and limit to Covenant longevity. Yet, Paul was almost casual in his mention of Ages. At II Timothy 1:9, he intimated two Ages only casually; but does this account represent the entire Ages scope? I think not!. Jesus also mentioned Two Ages, but not exactly the same as Paul’s Two Ages. The ‘previous Age’ in Paul's A.D. 68 time, at II Timothy 1:9, was the Messianic ‘age to come’ uttered by Jesus in Matthew 12:32 (summer of A.D. 28). But Paul was in the 10th Age when he wrote the II Timothy epistle. He was in the 9th Age when he wrote the I Timothy epistle. Compare “until the appearing” in I Timothy 6:14 with “now made manifest by the appearing” in II Timothy 1:10. Paul lived unto Parousia! My book, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, gives much more detail concerning the Messianic reign and its place in the Actuality and Reality arena.
And about your God-breath enquiry: ‘Theopneustos’ means ‘God Inspired,’ or ‘Inbreathed of God,’ but in Greek Reality. If Daniel visions were inspired in Actuality, then we can say in retrospect: the Ten Ages concept now exist Theopneustos in Reality. As far as I know, this author is the only one ever to detect Ten Ages in scripture (and to subsequently posit his findings for critique). Ten Ages, as the whole of God-covenant extensions in time and space, exist in Reality not in Actuality; therefore, they are not relative to the modernist futurism! Consistent with age-old metaphysical conceptions, man continues to major in a minor; predictably he substitutes Actuality for Reality’s immutability. In conclusion: no, we do not live in the present; we cannot live in the present. Our mental efficacy is not sufficient to bring us into the present; we can only think we have total awareness. In words of the renowned philosopher, Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” And another great philosopher, Sarte, describes ‘existentialism’ as man’s propensity to conform himself in roles most advantageous to his narcissistic value of Actuality and Reality. Habitually, man circumvents the truth in science and semantics, opts for opinion and word usage, and thus deceives himself of his true nature.
===w===
RSS Feed