Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Bill Dings, Nothings and What's Never?

Expand Messages
  • fictiveparrot
    ... Well, I don t think you can at all prove that. It is certainty that I often become upset with as it seems to me the thoughts are never followed to a
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 23 4:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > There can not have been Nothing.
      > Something has always been the case.
      > Yet, Being has Nothing in its core.

      Well, I don't think you can at all prove that. It is 'certainty' that I often become upset with as it seems to me the thoughts are never followed to a logical conclusion. I would, of course, argue that nothing could have been there all the time, until something came out of it. and that then either nothing is gone or it is still where it was, but there is something too. I have no proof for the model and I wont preach it, but I can like the symmetry... Nothing might be the balance of everything, for example, and something the consequence of unrest. I'm not sure that is offensive. It is rather like particle theory and attraction-repulsion...absolute zero, and negative and positive temperature (not merely on the celsius scale, systems that have negative and positive entropy)...

      But it seems that if you can imagine 'nothing' -- and I have to say it seems to me that this can't be something and its negative -- then like an arm cut off there is sensation. It suggests there could be nothing, and if there is the possibility, it is not the best action to close a door on it with assurance and declare everyone else that dreams of the possibility "wrong".

      > When someone says Being, or when some says Nothing,
      > in the profoundest sense that someone does not know
      > what (s)he is talking about.

      It would be my contention that unless someone holds doubt as a candle up to every word they utter that they don't know what they are talking about. I hold a candle to my doubt and it reflects like a light-house. My deconstruction of your earlier note wasn't a rage against you, it was a point of contention with your assurity that you knew, and that you could utter the ideas well enough that everyone would understand them as you did, or that philosophers that you quote were much different (that they could offer verbiage that was unmistakable in transitioning their ideas across language barriers and translations). Major merlin knew absolutely everything even if he never said a thing -- and just ask him. Alive and dead his contributions are about the same. He claimed to know something but by his own admittance could never say what it was. Well, shut up already then...I read tons of his drivel and what it said was "I am a mystic, here read this ambling book that tells you that I think I am a mystic... it won't help you become one because I can't give you the secret because I don't know what it is...but rest assured I know everything..." And then he would turn to not really answering the messages of his imaginary inquirers.

      Myself, I am a know-nothing. I have interest which makes me explore. I apply ideas I have learned in math and science and language, because they are interesting models that seem generally to hold. They are 'interesting' but I usually doubt they are true. There is an exception that falls in the woods, and not everyone is out looking for it, nor do they have the time. There is often a much more pressing imaginary reality awaiting them.

      By "being and nothing" are you trying to restrict the discussion to individuals? Say something like soul, or a relation to discussion of free will, or actuality of nothing (which you suggest can't exist) as opposed to something (which most of us, I assume, believe we experience). Or something else entirely? I am wondering if part of the main difference in opinion is hovering around the subject being different... that is of course once you get past the point where "I am right!" is important.

      Terrible Tides
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream







        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)






        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.

        h.

        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Hello H,
        >
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        >
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        >
        >
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        >
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        >
        > h.
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.