Esse-Monism

[ReapReason]

I call myself an esse-panentheist, but I am not sure that my title correctly represents my views. Esse-monism would probably be more correct.

But what I do believe is that there is only one act of reality, as opposed to many realities in so far as what it means for a thing to have an act of existence. However I recognise that there is a duality in the essence of things (different natures or forms).
In other-words, while most would think that the many natures we see are realities in and of them selves, I on the other hand see an intrinsic distinction between reality as an act and the potentiality of new essences.

To put it simply, the nature we call human is not what makes a human real. A human being is a potential nature. That can only be possible if there is a fundamental distinction between what it means to have an intrinsic act of reality and what it means to be a human being. If reality was an “intrinsic” expression of human nature, then a human-being would never not be a reality. Such a nature would exist timelessly with no beginning or end, since human nature is fundamentally the same thing as being real. That’s evidently not the case because human nature is an object of potentiality; it has a beginning “in” reality.

So instead of saying that a human-being is intrinsically an act of reality, I say that there is only one act of reality in which a duality of essences participate.

Thus I am not a pure monist. I don’t believe that all natures can be reduced either to their own act of reality or on to one reality. I am only a monist in regards to existence or esse, and I advocate dualism in regards to essence or form.

 

[meltzerboy]

I call myself an esse-panentheist, but I am not sure that my title correctly represents my views. Esse-monism would probably be more correct.

But what I do believe is that there is only one act of reality, as opposed to many realities in so far as what it means for a thing to have an act of existence. However I recognise that there is a duality in the essence of things (different natures or forms).
In other-words, while most would think that the many natures we see are realities in and of them selves, I on the other hand see an intrinsic distinction between reality as an act and the potentiality of new essences.

To put it simply, the nature we call human is not what makes a human real. A human being is a potential nature. That can only be possible if there is a fundamental distinction between what it means to have an intrinsic act of reality and what it means to be a human being. If reality was an “intrinsic” expression of human nature, then a human-being would never not be a reality. Such a nature would exist timelessly with no beginning or end, since human nature is fundamentally the same thing as being real. That’s evidently not the case because human nature is an object of potentiality; it has a beginning “in” reality.

So instead of saying that a human-being is intrinsically an act of reality, I say that there is only one act of reality in which a duality of essences participate.

Thus I am not a pure monist. I don’t believe that all natures can be reduced either to their own act of reality or on to one reality. I am only a monist in regards to existence or esse, and I advocate dualism in regards to essence or form.

I find this interesting and appealing to my philosophical side. Admittedly, that side of me was more dominant when I was much younger. So, instead of discussing your esse-monism or esse-panentheism in more detail, I would like to ask you whether and, if so, how this philosophy helps you live your life from day to day or gives you a sense of purpose, direction, or comfort for the future? Please understand I am not criticizing your ideas, but trying to understand if they have any practical value for you and your relation to others.

 

[ReapReason]

I find this interesting and appealing to my philosophical side. Admittedly, that side of me was more dominant when I was much younger. So, instead of discussing your esse-monism or esse-panentheism in more detail, I would like to ask you whether and, if so, how this philosophy helps you live your life from day to day or gives you a sense of purpose, direction, or comfort for the future? Please understand I am not criticizing your ideas, but trying to understand if they have any practical value for you and your relation to others.

My philosophical position reveals to me that there is more to reality than simply what is known through sense perception. Reality is not intrinsically the physical objects I perceive, but rather these objects are in a very real sense a veil which points beyond itself to a powerful transcendent mystery, a holistic entity which sustains me in reality and intimately permeates everything that I am. This allows me to rise above the vein animalistic meaninglessness of materialism in search of that which is most Fundamental and most real. The closer I am to reality, the more in touch with it i become, the more true to reality I feel, the more spiritually awake I feel…
I am at the complete mercy of this “esse” or existence, and I am driven to understand why. Understanding what existence is in its most fundamental sense is essential to understanding why I even seek a “value” in the first place. What am I that I should desire anything, love, morality, hope. These desires, emotions, including my nature, is merely a contingency and as such do not in themselves explain why they exist or what they are, for they are not intrinsically existence. And so what is existence that these things should be apart of my nature, since these things are not here by ontological necessity. They do not have to exist. Esse holds the key to what I am searching for.

What is esse, that a nature such as I now exists? To look beyond the veil represents to me a true spiritual quest.

 

[hicetnunc]

What is esse, that a nature such as I now exists? To look beyond the veil represents to me a true spiritual quest.

Have you come across the Thomistic concept of actus essendi? You may find this blog of interet in your quest.

aquinasactusessendi.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I call myself an esse-panentheist, but I am not sure that my title correctly represents my views. Esse-monism would probably be more correct.

But what I do believe is that there is only one act of reality, as opposed to many realities in so far as what it means for a thing to have an act of existence. However I recognise that there is a duality in the essence of things (different natures or forms).
In other-words, while most would think that the many natures we see are realities in and of them selves, I on the other hand see an intrinsic distinction between reality as an act and the potentiality of new essences.

To put it simply, the nature we call human is not what makes a human real. A human being is a potential nature. That can only be possible if there is a fundamental distinction between what it means to have an intrinsic act of reality and what it means to be a human being. If reality was an “intrinsic” expression of human nature, then a human-being would never not be a reality. Such a nature would exist timelessly with no beginning or end, since human nature is fundamentally the same thing as being real. That’s evidently not the case because human nature is an object of potentiality; it has a beginning “in” reality.

So instead of saying that a human-being is intrinsically an act of reality, I say that there is only one act of reality in which a duality of essences participate.

Thus I am not a pure monist. I don’t believe that all natures can be reduced either to their own act of reality or on to one reality. I am only a monist in regards to existence or esse, and I advocate dualism in regards to essence or form.

You are too caught up in philosophy. Your error is that you are not living in reality. Monism has been a dead end, full of contradictions for ages - though it keeps croping up. You have to trust that the world is real and each individual thing in it is accurately reported to your intellect exactly as it is in reality. From your sense apprehension of these individually sensed objects and your reflection upon them you find many types or classes or species of individuals, each of which share the common characteristics of their class. They share a common nature, an essence, yet each exists. But the common nature or essence each member of a class possesses, either can be or not be. Thus their existence is not their own, existence is not a note of their essence. Yet they do exist but only in a limited degree, they are always open to more or less existence. It is clear that they do not possess all the existence there is. They cannot account for their own existence, therefor they must have it from a being that has unlimited existence. Because this being bestows existence on all other beings, he cannot be a part of the universe of natures upon which he bestows existence - he is not a part of that universe and must have existed from all eternity since he possesses existence without limit, there is nothing to limit his existence.

 

[ReapReason]

You are too caught up in philosophy.

I fail to understand how that can be meaningful. Its like saying you are too caught up in mathematics. But by what objective standard do you base this assertion?

Your error is that you are not living in reality.

I think therefore I exist and live in reality.

Monism has been a dead end,

I made it clear that I don’t support monism. I support esse-monism. I explained the difference.

You have to trust that the world is real and each individual thing in it is accurately reported to your intellect exactly as it is in reality.

I never said that physical reality isn’t real, I said that it isn’t its own act of reality; and i explained why I think this to be the case.

their existence is not their own, existence is not a note of their essence.

Agreed

Yet they do exist but only in a limited degree, they are always open to more or less existence. It is clear that they do not possess all the existence there is.

If you mean that they are not the intrinsic act of their own reality, then I agree.

They cannot account for their own existence,

The reason they cannot account for their own existence, is because they are not their own existence. They are merely essence coupled with the act of reality, insofar as reality is a distinct and completely different act in comparison to the of essence of potential things.

therefor they must have it from a being that has unlimited existence.

They must have it from a being that is intrinsically existence by nature.

Because this being bestows existence on all other beings, he cannot be a part of the universe of natures upon which he bestows existence - he is not a part of that universe and must have existed from all eternity since he possesses existence without limit, there is nothing to limit his existence.

I never claimed that the essence of potential things are an intrinsic aspect of existence.
In fact by themselves, potential essences have no reality. Their essence exists only because their being is generated by the act of reality.

 

[empther]

Let’s see how far we get in the first post before it gets confusing.

I call myself an esse-panentheist, but I am not sure that my title correctly represents my views. Esse-monism would probably be more correct.

But what I do believe is that there is only one act of reality, as opposed to many realities in so far as what it means for a thing to have an act of existence. However I recognise that there is a duality in the essence of things (different natures or forms).
In other-words, while most would think that the many natures we see are realities in and of them selves, I on the other hand see an intrinsic distinction between reality as an act and the potentiality of new essences.

Anybody follow that?

How can new essences have potentiality if they don’t already exist?

It’s just a long stream of words.

 

[ReapReason]

Let’s see how far we get in the first post before it gets confusing.

Anybody follow that?

How can new essences have potentiality if they don’t already exist?

It’s just a long stream of words.

I thought that everything after the point at which you get confuesd explains what i mean.
However, what i do mean when i talk about potential essences, is that their comming in to existence is a potential.

 

[empther]

what i do mean when i talk about potential essences, is that their comming in to existence is a potential.

There is a potential for a pink elephant to exist if God chooses to make one,
but the pink elephant has no potential for existence before it does exist.

Do you see how plain English can explain anything?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

There is a potential for a pink elephant to exist if God chooses to make one,
but the pink elephant has no potential for existence before it does exist.

Do you see how plain English can explain anything?

Using convoluted language makes one appears more authoritative.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I would like to ask you whether and, if so, how this philosophy helps you live your life from day to day or gives you a sense of purpose, direction, or comfort for the future? Please understand I am not criticizing your ideas, but trying to understand if they have any practical value for you and your relation to others.

That is a very sensible question that I ask myself everyday.

 

[empther]

Using convoluted language makes one appears more authoritative.

Not to me.

Appears to me that people who do this have no respect for the truth, or they’d use plaiin English to make the “truth” clear to all.

I have no respect for these phonies.

 

[ReapReason]

**There is a potential for a pink elephant to exist **if God chooses to make one,
but the pink elephant has no potential for existence before it does exist.

Do you see how plain English can explain anything?

You just made the claim that there is the potential for a things existence, and then in the same breath you deny that potential.

I am not the one who has a problem with presenting things reasonably.

 

[ReapReason]

Not to me.

Appears to me that people who do this have no respect for the truth, or they’d use plaiin English to make the “truth” clear to all.

I have no respect for these phonies.

If somebody uses a form of English that you don’t understand, it does not necessarily mean that a person has no respect for truth. More likely it is you that does not have respect for understanding.

 

[ReapReason]

Using convoluted language makes one appears more authoritative.

Ad-hominem attacks is an excuse to ignore or refuse to understand somebodies argument.

 

[ReapReason]

I have no respect for these phonies.

Funny; i have no respect for arrogant irrational arguments. Why don’t you just stick to the topic.