but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super
high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plus.... lets think through this notion of the Whole..
>>
>> Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes
>> this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this
>> whole?
>>
>> perhaps this "whole" is our vague and confused invention.... or a mere
>> speculative inquiry.
>>
>> in your notion of the whole the same age-old problems arise......
>>
>> the problem of unity and diversity... of change and changelesness....
>>
>> What is universal and invariable about your whole... what is enduring
>> about your whole? what is essential about your whole? and are these just
>> "matters", "essences", "forces"?
>>
>> and we just the temporary products and observers or deducers of them?
>>
>> THOUGHT is the most difficult thing in the world....
>>
>> "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and
>> of things which are not, that they are not" (Protagoras)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by
>>> definition),"
>>>
>>> But we don't know the "whole of that which exists".... and we shouldn't
>>> conceive of the "whole of that which exists" as external to us our outside
>>> of us, as "out their somewhere".... "we" are confused and included in the
>>> "whole of that which exists".... whatever in the world that or it or I is.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>> On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Truth/Reality?
>>>>>
>>>>> nice one!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God?
>>>> The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by
>>>> definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many
>>>> religions seem to agree with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a "matter of taste" usually followed by a lecture on what God
>>>> demands of you.  When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to