>>12890116>I gave a very generalized version of that. Ginnungagap is not sentient, it's a pool of chaos and chaos can create.I think sentient might be the wrong word, because if the chaos creates stuff, it wouldn't have the need to sense what it created, similar to how authors don't have to read their own books in order to know what they wrote.
If you meant conscious, then I'd have to ask why an unconscious thing would create, or more generally speaking do anything.
There isn't something before that chaos that can enact or use it, like how a dance is enacted or how a tool is used, so the action must come from the chaos, which would make it an agent/actor.
Then again, we can think if that chaos just creates randomly or with some intelligence behind it, and in the latter case, we could easily argue that the chaos has intellect, which would make it God-like again (in that regard).
> Order is stagnancy as it prevents change. I don't think so, I think that change always requires two aspects, something which is different from moment to moment, and something which remains the same. For example in some ways you are the same person you were 20 years ago, but in other ways you differ (e.g. in height), because at some point you were shorter and now you are taller. But a human doesn't have two heights, so you must reconcile that again.
And I think that some principle of order or unity makes all these moments into one human life, from beginning to end.
>Speaking of, let's take a look and see what your idea of order is.I'm very Aristotelian, so I think that order is a principle better known as form, which is correlative to matter. So for example a golden statue is one the one hand shaped in a certain way, but also made out of some stuff, and you need both aspects working together, you can't reduce one to another. Talking about the shape doesn't tell you anything about the metal, talking about the metal doesn't tell you anything about the shape.
