Originally posted by the Wanderer
That comes down to the question of which is stronger, existence or non-existence?
Originally Posted by Candide West
Personally I don’t think there’s a meaningful answer to this question. It’s like asking “which is stronger, left or right?” That’s my view anyway
Originally posted by DCTom
Are you suggesting a ying/yang dichotomy?
There is a compelling case for coming at the question from that point of view. It denies, though, the inherent goodness of being, moving it to neutral. I would submit that this only works if reality is strictly that which is directly observable in the natural world. All things material have elements of grace and corruption. All things natural are causes for good or ill. The blizzards that freeze people melt in the spring to fill the water tables and promote growth.
But if you move beyond there here and now, I think that it breaks down. When talking about the nature of eternity, there can only be good since evil is that which is corruptible and something that is truly eternal cannot be corrupted.
All of the three above answers are fascinating. First, the idea of “stronger” as applied to good vs evil or existence and non existence brings in some important questions of usage. What does the OP mean by “stronger” and in what context? As abstractions?
Placing them in that sort of juxtaposition implies as well that they are discreet forces, tendencies, values, etc, easily and clearly distinguishable from one another. Is this so? Are there never conditions in which a factor is neutral or both with some ambivalence or need for consideration beyond mere appearances?
Some, as well, would equate non-existence with Being as such. Existence is dependent on Being, so there isn’t even a comparison there.
The reduction of the question to whether left or right is stronger, makes much sense, because it puts it in the context of their being aspects of the same manifestation. That begins to make sense, as the proposed opponents, while believed by some to be absolute, are in practice perceptual and relative matters. Of course, the OP, despite sharing the same religion with me, will likely claim that they are absolutes. On a deeper consideration this is seen to be impossible, and perhaps i am wrong about the OP’s position here.
Also, it doesn’t seem to me that yin/yang is a dichotomy. It is more like left/right and stated as polarities for educational [purposes. In fact they are represented as aspects of he same unified circle, each having an aspect of the other within.
And the “observable” world is always a strictly personal one, as it cannot include dimensions of existence beyond one’s perceptual abilities. Nor does that persona experience, as personal, include God, so the observable world is radically incomplete. And that is where science and religion get tangled in their own feets/feats.
So the question might be "What is *not part of timeless eternity, since we are quite sure now that time is completely artificial due to our perspective as men and women? ln fact it is the very nature of our limitations as humans that we are able to consider the idea of time in any way at all. It is left to the mystics who accomplish maturing into exceptional contemplatives to see this clearly. The rest of us can stay here and parse questions such as this artificial duality.
