Assume the existence of a) cheerskep's head, b) a falling anvil about to
land on a). I submit that cheerskep will observe a relation between less
pain and more pain dependent on the anvil a) falling and b) landing.
Geoff C
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: On unjustified assumptions of "existent" entities
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:20:54 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/08 12:14:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The particles of an atom are related together in an act of
> closure, and that relation is not a "notion" in the quasi mind of
> any particle or atom, but is an objective fact that the human
> mind has found to exist.
>
Very quickly: What you are doing there is simply insisting that an entity
--
a thing you call a "relation" -- "exists". But that's exactly what I deny.
I
say there is no such entity "out there". And I say the burden of proof is
on
anyone who insists a particular entity exists -- like relations, angels,
devils,
paranormal miracles, operant "curses", and so forth.
Your mind can consider many notions, and concoct what it calls a "relation"
between any two or more of them. But that "relation" is solely notional, a
"comparison" your mind invents. I can be compared to the coffee mug on my
desk in
countless ways. I can say, "The mug and I are related by comparative age,
size, "relative" distance from the Plymouth Rock.
Think of Cleopara's left nostril when she was four-years-one-day old. By
you,
there are a number of "relations" between that object and my left nostril
on
10/6/08. Then we can bring in your left nostril as well, and consider the
three-way "relations" -- their relative size, color, etc. Then we can
articulate
"relationships" between the three nostrils and the mug on my desk. And
then. .
. Your position entails that every single notion of that sort is citing an
entity, a "thing", out there. To my mind this position entails countless
absurdities. And remember that each of those alleged "relations" is an
entity by
you, so they must have relations to every other object AND to every other
relation that ever "existed", and each of THOSE relations-between-relations
is an
entity, so it is further related to...
The usual notion of "fact" is similarly absurd. I assert that "facts" also
have no entity status outside of our notional mullings. You would insist
that
besides the entities "my mug" and "my desk", there is an entity involved --
no,
a number of other entities involved -- called "facts" ("It is a fact that
the
mug is on the desk. It is a fact that the desk is bigger than the mug. It
is a
fact that I just touched the mug. It is a fact that...") And evidently
every
extant relation entails facts. ("It is a fact that my left toe is related
to
the New Orleans Mardi Gras Parade of 1967.")
Recall that I started this thread with a confession of my astonishment that
we all have assumed the "existence" of utterly fundamental objects and
events
-- such as "relations" and "facts" and "signifying/denoting/naming etc" --
without ever thinking the implications through. . .to their exposure as
absurdities.
**************
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
