> Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this topic to
> I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the ----"
> I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question.
> Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
> (Not Descartes' s "I think therefore I think I am" and so on)
There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I can
Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy), if
you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are 'being',
you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
innate to the situation.
So....I am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit to
the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the 'reality'
of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at