but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Plus.... lets think through this notion of the Whole.. >> >> Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes >> this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this >> whole? >> >> perhaps this "whole" is our vague and confused invention.... or a mere >> speculative inquiry. >> >> in your notion of the whole the same age-old problems arise...... >> >> the problem of unity and diversity... of change and changelesness.... >> >> What is universal and invariable about your whole... what is enduring >> about your whole? what is essential about your whole? and are these just >> "matters", "essences", "forces"? >> >> and we just the temporary products and observers or deducers of them? >> >> THOUGHT is the most difficult thing in the world.... >> >> "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and >> of things which are not, that they are not" (Protagoras) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by >>> definition)," >>> >>> But we don't know the "whole of that which exists".... and we shouldn't >>> conceive of the "whole of that which exists" as external to us our outside >>> of us, as "out their somewhere".... "we" are confused and included in the >>> "whole of that which exists".... whatever in the world that or it or I is. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. >>>>> >>>>> Truth/Reality? >>>>> >>>>> nice one! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? >>>> The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by >>>> definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many >>>> religions seem to agree with: >>>> >>>> >>>> It's a "matter of taste" usually followed by a lecture on what God >>>> demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
