Hi John,
Le 07-janv.-08, à 18:12, John Mikes wrote (to Hal Ruhl)
>
> Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
> though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
> dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
> like
Hey Günther, thanks for the comments.
On Jan 9, 6:43 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
Hi John:
At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
>on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
>'meaning' of texts):
>HR:
>"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
>JM:
>does anything like 'completion'
Günther:
your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?) box of nothingness. It was long ago when we discussed
these things with Hal, I changed my views a lot since then - as well,
as Hal also developed a comprehensive theory of his own. I wrote a
macama on
Gevin,
thanks for your comprehensive - and very understandable - explanation about
"nothing" (no pun) and its qualia-circumstances.
My post to Hal targeted "nothingness" as differentiated from
"nothing". The concept, not the qualia or nature of its adjectival
meaning.
I regret to have missed so fa
Hi,
> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, unifo
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
> no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
> one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always
> asked and must be answered.
On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> different angles - at the
Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
HR:
"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
JM:
does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality?
Hi John:
At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
>Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
>though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
>dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
>like:
>
>"...In the Beginning the
Hal, me again (John):
Do you seriously mean "How many Nothings"?
John
On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
> though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
> dating back
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
like:
"...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
observer of
Hi Russell:
I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your
book. Thanks for the cite.
My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
one it must answer and that is its duration. This questi
13 matches
Mail list logo
