A guess about immaterial

(I’m working through this.)

“Spirit” or “immaterial” is an important term to be precise about. The logical structure of the term is an infinite name: it is simply the negation of “material” as opposed to being the privation of material. “Dark” for example, is the privation of light, and cold the privation of heat; but “non-dark”, the infinite name, is the negation of dark. Aristotle insisted, rightly, that infinite names were in fact not names at all (the adjective was one that negated the noun, like “artificial leather”). His reason was even though nondark denied one meaning, it did not impose a new one. The square root of negative one is nondark, as is the unicorn’s second horn. One does not name something by an infinite name as such.

Though we use the term immaterial is a negation of materiality, we use it to describe the term of some causal relationship. This is clearest in the unity we see among several images. A series of images which exist as multiple are one in thought. We name this unity by the negation of the multiplicity, but the “being one” is not the same thing as the “being one” of any one image, and so we do not have a mere contrariety or privation of one and the many. One thought does not stand to three oranges the way one orange does. The privation of many images is one image; or perhaps the absence of any images, where the absence is understood to be in the same order. The unity of thought with respect to all that can be sensed and imagined is not a unity standing to the many as a privation of the multitude, but a negation of it. It thought does not stand to many images as one image or a “zero images” (which seems to be the quantitative imagination of the lack of quantity) This is why we use the infinite name, but apply it to a reality which is known to be, but only known by negation. I can’t understand thought except by using an image, but I use it as negated, and negated in a more profound way than the negation “zero images”, if zero has any value, which I’m not convinced it does.

But how can something be used precisely as negated? Won’t I be forced to some kind of analogy? Thought just exists. it makes unities transcending the sensible and imaginable. why do I know it and not know it? That’s just how the it reveals itself, I guess. Take the world as it is.

So do we divide the infinite name? Or is it better to say all negations are not infinite names? Some things are known, or are known best, by negations, even though negation considered simply as a process of negating some noun does not result in a new noun.

%d bloggers like this: