coherence of hetero-reference, there would be no existence (for existence is not Reality, is notultimate reality). And all this intercoherence of hetero-references (objects) grants the capturedfeeling of concreteness to the forms (which capture, the ‘capta’ or data); thus the
“reality.” My point is that my system is absolutely unique in that it positsthat differenceitself/ pure subjectivity/ in-ness (in, itself)/ pure self-reference/ Being/ Being-in-itself/ myradicalized notion of ‘the Infinitesimal’/ the Same (as contrasts ‘the Other’)/ The One/ Oneness/the unicity of unity, the unity of the unit, pure singularityare allthe same‘big difference’, and
they are all synonymous notions which point beyond themselves as only mere references,indications, mere traces of the penultimate reality, and this is the closest we can get to theUltimate! We must keep in mind that we are on
of the Distinction,
the realm of Being, and so must bear in mind
the difference between difference and reference, thedistinction between distinction and indication.
It is funny that this distinction is a self-referential distinction (albeit an asymmetrical one), for my thesis is that distinction is self-reference, itself.Synonymous with our positions are the terms ‘Surjective’ and ‘Superjective’,respectively, Corrigan’s technical term, and my own. But what is surjected (like injected, withthe prefix indicating the ‘upon’ relation) onto the world is not the same in our systems: his isAwareness, and mine is the Infinite, and mine requires a big difference before the world is made(‘animadverted’ or otherwise distinguished from ultimate reality, however the derivative andconsequent, antecedent reality takes shape). This big difference is my distinction betweendistinction itself, which I take to be pure and radical oneness (as Michael Lambert of the series“The Highlander” would say “There can be only One”) and ultimate reality that I call theAbsolute Infinite,
and they are not the same
. My non-dual ultimate reality differs fromCorrigan’s and most philosophers’ systems in that it is divided, and the very division itself is thisoneness. Yes, oneness, the non-dualist’s category of the ultimate, is not my ultimate, but my pen-ultimate, and also called ‘the same’ (as contrasts ‘the other’ or ‘the Infinitely and Totally Other’)is the oneness, and perhaps surprising to most monists, it is ‘the first distinction’, difference itself,identity and difference as pure self-reference, being in itself!
And it is not ultimate!
It is thecenter and source and wellspring, indeed, as the act of distinction, of the world of forms, but ithas nothing to do with the world’s content as value, significance, meaning, semantics, ethics,aesthetics, and overall axiology. This distinction within the formless as the source of form, as the‘first distinction’, is utterly unique to my metaphysical system, and I take it to be true. Corrigandoesn’t speak of the source as a distinction, but as Awareness, and although this sounds different,it is not, I am in complete agreement with Corrigan, although he may not be in agreement with