--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Aspirin is good for headaches. It really does work. But if you like to > suffer, there are ineffective things you can take for a headache. > > Robin likes really convoluted intellectual stuff with strong emotional > overtones. I prefer more simplicity. There is what is called 'you', a body, > and there is a world outside the body. The body is in the world and is thus a > part of the world and some value in that body experiences all of this. From > the deepest recess of the mind to the furtherest extent of the world, it is > all continuous and connected. If we restrict our attention to the present > moment, not thinking of future and past or imagining things we cannot see, > there is nothing else.
Hmmmmm...maybe I'll take that aspirin now. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > >> <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > >> <snip> > > > >>> The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence > > > >>> of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold > > > >>> that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' > > > >>> seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the > > > >>> self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, > > > >>> which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest > > > >>> quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon > > > >>> makes it less ambiguous. > > > >> > > > >> Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. > > > >> "For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature" > > > >> is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed > > > >> by a semicolon. > > > > > > > > It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although > > > > in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno "gets" 'since' > > > > in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as > > > > an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) > > > > > > > > > > Let me try again - first the original: > > > > > > 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's > > > presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest > > > quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > > > > > I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: > > > > > > [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] > > > The self is the individuating existence of a nature | > > > God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its > > > highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > > > > > I can see it can be read this way: > > > > > > 'xxx xxxxx [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which > > > is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can > > > hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > > > > > I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the > > > world: > > > > > > The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. > > > > > > But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, > > > because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its > > > equivalent. So then I am forced to write: > > > > > > The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. > > > > > > There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me > > > think this over again. As you can see the context of the original > > > sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the > > > sentence disappears altogether. > > > > > > If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake > > > so why not then: > > > > > > The self is nature, which is absolute being. > > > > > > Why have two definitions for the same?: > > > > > > The self is absolute being. > > > > > > Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. > > > > > > We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute > > > being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or > > > 'being'. Pick one. > > > > OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at > > how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' > > life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean > > it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head > > around any of it. > > > > > >
