06-16-2014, 07:21 PM
How exactly do you get that? What is "impossibility"?
To me, impossibility is something which arises from possibilities that are counter-effective. No possibility in itself is impossible, but possibilities can be made impossible by their correlation with other possibilities.
I think I get what you are saying that to accept a possibility as being possible you have to accept the rejection of what it is not and that is an impossibility or lack of possibility. Thus by rejecting the impossibility the way is open for the possibility to be.
However, that is where I am confused, because I do not see how the acceptance of rejection leads to the acceptance of the possibility because it would seem to me that there is no need for the rejection if there is already acceptance. To me there only needs to be the acceptance of the possibilities which give rise to the possibility and the impossibility falls away in the face of what is accepted with no need for the effort towards rejection.
Perhaps I am to better grasp you if you mean that by accepting a possibility you are thereby also accepting that all of those things which are counter-effective with that possibility are thus impossible due to improper conditions and so to accept the possibility automatically includes a rejection of possibilities not supportable with the initial possibility.
However, that still leaves the impossibility as an illusory relationship formed of the interactions between possibilities and is not in itself actually that which determines possibility but is, instead, an effect.
To me, impossibility is something which arises from possibilities that are counter-effective. No possibility in itself is impossible, but possibilities can be made impossible by their correlation with other possibilities.
I think I get what you are saying that to accept a possibility as being possible you have to accept the rejection of what it is not and that is an impossibility or lack of possibility. Thus by rejecting the impossibility the way is open for the possibility to be.
However, that is where I am confused, because I do not see how the acceptance of rejection leads to the acceptance of the possibility because it would seem to me that there is no need for the rejection if there is already acceptance. To me there only needs to be the acceptance of the possibilities which give rise to the possibility and the impossibility falls away in the face of what is accepted with no need for the effort towards rejection.
Perhaps I am to better grasp you if you mean that by accepting a possibility you are thereby also accepting that all of those things which are counter-effective with that possibility are thus impossible due to improper conditions and so to accept the possibility automatically includes a rejection of possibilities not supportable with the initial possibility.
However, that still leaves the impossibility as an illusory relationship formed of the interactions between possibilities and is not in itself actually that which determines possibility but is, instead, an effect.