I exist, but contingently. My Being is not my own, but received from another, from God, who is Being itself. So my Being is God's Being. But I am not God or anything else. So I have my own Being that distinguishes me numerically from everything else. So I am and am not that in which I participate.Somewhat to my surprise, I don't find this problematic at all. Suppose a wave could speak. It might say,
Gilson does not show a convincing way around this contradiction.
I exist, but contingently. My Waviness is not my own, but received from another, from Ocean, who is Waviness itself. So my Waviness is Ocean's Waviness. But I am not Ocean or anything else. So I have my own Waviness that distinguishes me numerically from everything else. So I am and am not that in which I participate.There is a reading of the wave's speech that makes it utterly unproblematic and indeed obvious and could not be otherwise. And to this extent Bill's 'contradiction' is unproblematic too. But we mustn't read it too literally. There is a temptation to see Waviness as an entity in itself. Especially as it may be 'received from another', as a gift, as it were. And also because it supposedly 'distinguishes me numerically from everything else'. If Bill's version is contradictory I say it is so to the extent that it hypostasises Being. This is where Bill and I part company. For I can't see Being as a gift or distinguishing principle. Without Being I am nothing so to whom is the gift? Likewise, in what sense was I undistinguished from all else before Being was granted me? I can give an answer to these questions, but pace Bill's intentions in writing this piece, it's a profoundly materialistic one.