Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Lashyia Meeks

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Scrimgeour

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

SCANNED PDF 

This is to challenge the point of view expressed in Notebooks, 12 August 2008 (attached). 

Granted that God qua the universal individual never has become real and can never cease being real, it is still correct to say that for X to be real for God is for X to be real "for something else that either has become or is in process of becoming real." Why? Because "to be real for God" is an inexact way of saying "to be real for God now," for God qua God has now become or is in process of becoming in God's latest de facto state, as distinct from God qua the universal individual. 

In other words, "God," like "world," or "reality," is a token-reflexive term, in that it has a significantly (however slightly) different meaning every time it is used. 

Just how this challenge and the point of view it challenges are to be reconciled; and just what difference, if any, taking both of them into account would make to any statement of my position are questions to be pursued on some later occasion. 

1 April 2009 

On "Logical-Ontological Type Differences in Outline: Ten Theses"

...