Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of "Process Philosophy" instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming.
The "open problem" of bodies that Bruno admits only exists because of the neglect of the problem of Becoming that any ontology that assumes that Being is fundamental will have. Even if we make arguments, ala Parmenides<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/>, etc. that becoming is an illusion<http://skepticalphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/08/parmenides-refutation-of-change.html>, the "illusion" itself must be explained or else one is left with an explanatory infinite regress. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 December 2013 08:05, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked >> pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you "erased" the >> following questions: >> >> Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us >> in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. >> John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) >> >> Bruno: If this is trivial, go to step 4. If not, explain the problem, >> and, please, without insult, ad hominem remark, and in a way so that we >> understand our error. >> John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) >> >> >> This will go on forever without resolution if you refuse to answer these >> questions, but maybe going on forever without resolution is your goal. >> >> Quite. This is almost as empty headed as just dismissing the idea as > "crackpot" without any explanation or refuattion. > > Bruno's laid out his assumptions and arguments, if you can refute them > please do so. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
