Hello Rich,
Note that the definitions I use below are from dictionary.com.
rich s:
Please explain this discrepancy. I am reading what appear to be two contradictory discriptions of the actual world.
First, note the context (emphasis [bold type] added):
No.33:
RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you exactly are you trying to get at. If you assert that ‘peace on earth’ is a condition that has always prevailed, then whatever is categorized under malice and sorrow is also a manifestation of that peace on earth.
To which Richard responded (emphasis [bold type] added):
Richard:
RICHARD: There is no ‘chaos’ and ‘order’ as a sub-stratum of the universe ... they are but human inventions and do not exist in actuality. (...)
Given the context, I presume Richard's usage of the words "chaos" and "order" are entirely different than the usage I have used above. The "chaos" referred to by him may be (and I infer this given his modifier "sub-stratum of the universe[1]") "the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe," in which case, that is not at all what I am referring to. Instead, however, he may be denying "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order" in reference to the
condition of this actual material universe, (and I agree). To contrast, I am speaking of "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order" as it pertains to
human cognition. Which is to say that, without human intelligence, there would be no ability to create, recognize, or categorize information ("order").
*
Trent:
Chaos is a fundamental characteristic of the actual, objective universe when the intellect is absent or unapplied.
I have edited my sentence because I realized (due to your response) that it was inarticulate to a degree that it was (obviously) not communicating what I had intended. The section (changed portions in bold type) will now read:
Trent:
The experience of life for an unintelligent animal is essentially chaotic, in that there is no means by which to create knowledge, recognize patterns in, communicate about, categorize, reflect upon, or apply value to the sense-datum experienced. And it makes sense that this is so—for if pre-intelligent experience were not this way, the intellect would be a redundant faculty of the brain; all would already be known and understood and there would be nothing to (re)cognize, no questions to ask, and no wonder at all.
(Note that animals, regardless of whether they're intelligent or not, are actual, hence the wording of my original (confusing) statement).
*
Trent:
The apperceptive, (direct, unfiltered, seamless) simultaneous experience of this complimentary interaction between chaos and order engenders the never ending experience of delightful patterns of sensations which have been named: wonder.
This has been edited for clarification, as follows:
Trent:
The apperceptive, (direct, unfiltered, seamless) simultaneous experience of this complimentary interaction between chaotic sense-datum and the ordering functions of the intellect engenders the never ending experience of delightful patterns of sensations which have been named: wonder.
By the way, I thought long and hard about using those two words (order, chaos), as I realized (and was told by others) that they're easily misunderstood (and quite a pain to write with), especially given the subject matter. However, I do think that they fit best and so I went ahead and used them them.
With all that said...has this resolved the discrepancies?
Thanks for your feedback,
Trent
[1]
1.something that is spread or laid under something else; a stratum or layer lying under another.
2. Philosophy . substance, considered as that which supports accidents or attributes.