09-06-2010, 07:14 PM
(09-06-2010, 06:24 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I'm probably repeating myself now. What I understood from unity100, and the part I agree with him on, was that any form whatsoever indicates a limitation of some sort.I realize that it is but a small gem in a treasure chest I'm picking up here. I've been trying to figure out a bridge between the two positions.
Would you say we can make the analogy with a sheet of paper? Infinity there being the infinite amount of things we can put on the paper. Then if you say it's a paper with a star on it. Then of all the infinite amount of things we used to be able to put on the paper, we now only have an infinite amount of things that happen to all be stars. So while there still is an infinite amount of freedom. There is no longer a totality of freedom the possible forms are together no longer infinity in Ra's usage of the term. Some things like a picture of a cat are no longer possible, unless of course it's a particularly starry cat..
If you agree. Then what would you say the state of the cat is if you define the paper as being a paper with a star on it? Is it's state now somehow changed or separated from the paper? Or is its state just as defined by the form we impose on the paper as the star was? Except maybe in the negative. "Is in potential here" versus "Is not in potential here"...
And if you disagree, can you try to describe in the analogy of the paper how you think it is? Or explain why the analogy fails?