anon IP edits
- In the "Alexandrian" explanation described above, the multiple from which evolution emerges is both secondary and sinful from its origin: it represents in fact (an idea that smacks of Manicheanism and the Hindu metaphysical systems) broken and pulverized unity. Starting from a very much more modern and completely different point of view, let us assert, as our original postulate, that, the multiple (that is, non-being, if taken in the pure state) being the only rational form of a creatable (creabile) nothingness, the creative act is comprehensible only as a gradual process of arrangement and unification, which amounts to accepting that to create is to unite. And, indeed, there is nothing to prevent our holding that union creates. To the objection that union presupposes already existing elements, I shall answer that physics has just shown us (in the case of mass) that experientially (and for all the protests of "common sense") the moving object exists only as the product of its motion.
I reverted the removals, but initially retained much of this as perhaps very tenuously relevant, but soon afterwards removed it, believing any connections of the ideas indicated in this quote to the primary subject of this page as too tenuous and obscure for it to be retained in the main article. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)