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

Re: [existlist] Digest Number 176

Expand Messages
  • Randy Zeitman
    ... You cut two snippets and put them together...I have no idea of whether I made a mistake in what I said or if it just needs clarification...it s like if
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 18 5:55 AM
      >I think now that I was trying to allude to a statement that
      >lives in antagonism with the statement you made. This,
      >perhaps, will make more sense:
      >"nothing is truly real" is the denial of,
      >"something is truly real"
      >Now, why did I want to say that?

      You cut two snippets and put them together...I have no idea of
      whether I made a mistake in what I said or if it just needs
      clarification...it's like if someone said "The Jews are hating this
      treatment in Illinois" and you quoted me as saying "The Jews are
      hating"....without the whole context who knows?

      >I think you were making these two claims:
      >there are many realities
      >there is a reality knowable by human perception.
      >Previously, I took issue with the first, without making an
      >argument. I still don't like it. But again I can't think of
      >anything to say.

      I don't blame you, I never said it.

      I said...there's no way to prove that what we observe is real. That
      doesn't imply anything about the number of realities whatsoever.
      There's no statement about 'alternate universes' being made.

      I also said...there is no way to know what we observe is real. It's
      an assumption, presumption, whatever want to call it based in

      >Even though I realise your not saying there are other
      >realities, just saying that there *could* be, but we can't
      >know, is, I think tiresome. Mainly because by making that
      >claim you say very little about the way things are.

      I've made a complete claim about the way things are....they are the
      way we say they are (perception).

      If you think it's tiresome I'll simply move on...that's my perception
      of things...

      >If your statement, "nothing is really real" is true
      >and it does deny, "something is truly real"
      >Then doesn't this deny the posibility of there being
      >something really real?

      No, it means we can never know it's truly real...we can only assert
      it is. I say Unicorns are truly real...not a thing any human can do
      to disprove it. They can site evidence, but never prove it can't be

      >So we couldn't be in a position to
      >say that there *could* be something really real.
      >To sum up, to say nothing is truly real implies the denial
      >of the statement something is truly real. This denies the
      >possibility of there being something real.

      Right, which I've not said.

      I've said there's no way to know what's real...therefore anything we
      observe may or may not be real...so until I know it's real, I'm
      talking that stand that it's not real (otherwise I can choose that
      anything I can imagine must be real), therefore I said nothing is
      real (nothing that we observer can be known to be real).

      >I haven't looked back on what else you said,
      >apologies if I've gone off on a tangent again. But I feel
      >I'm making a valid point here.

      You are! But it's not the point I made.

      "In the best relationships sex is the booby prize."

      "I'm gotten so out of shape sittin' at the computer all day that I
      get out of breath when I have to reach for the percent key!"

      - Zeitman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.