- 2,360
- 607
Yes, I understand a little of what you're explaining. So, everything must follow these concepts for it to be considered universal, right?Ye, you seem to have a misunderstanding.
I’ll try and explain it best I can:
When we talk about the “universal of a horse”—horses, then, would simply “imitate” this universal in order to be like it, rather than being formed by it like some substance.
A circle is a circle because “it is like the universal of a circle”. Naturally, all circles then, in order to exist would need to “imitate” this singular universal.
A concept that only belongs to a single circle, then, would not be a universal as circles no longer “imitate” it. Rather, it merely acts as an “essence” for this one circle.
The “CM2 of Space” then, is not CM2 because it has universal range, but rather, all space in the universe “imitates it” in order to exist. It doesn’t actively form that space but merely acts as the ground for that space to exist.
The leylines simply don’t fit this description because nothing is “participating” or “imitating” it. Rather, it holds the fundamental substance (elemental energy) that goes on to form the world. This is just IM2.
And also, the only real difference between CM2 and CM1 is that the CM2 concept would disappear if you removed all things participating in it, whereas the CM1 would not.
So how do we prove this?
Isn't the only way to prove it that these concepts must support all of reality, which proves that the things in that reality follow these Type 2 concepts, so they can be considered universal?