John M.... when I read your writing.... I see how it is wise, in the
tradition of Nagarjuna.... to make no assertions at all.... otherwise you
get caught up in the contradictions, internal inconcistencies, ironies, and
absurdities your writing shows above.

I think Bruno is right to critique absolute materialism..... it just
occurred to me today that the concept of materialism is ultimately
self-contradictory, logically impossible, and when you get right down to it:
absurd. I think it is on the wrong track.

what the right track is i don't know.

I think Bruno is right, we are following in Aristotle's footsteps.

We are looking for a universal implicit in the complexity of the
particulars.... we are trying to reduce the complexity of things to a
universal simplex/material substratum that somehow is a "material' ground
that is either acausal or we-don't-know-what... Berkeley famously showed
that the concept of "materialism" is a highly/overly abstract
generalization. And in our reductionism we effectively dematerialize or
metaphysicalize or transcendentalize our notions of matter, solidity,
substantiality, space, thingness, identity of "things". etc.

what is matter? I mean what
is it really, even just definitionally.

i think our notion of the origination (from "nothing") and the evolution of
matter from some "fundamental materiality" and elementary mechanical state
of affairs or something is nonsensical, unprovable, and when attempted to be
conceived.... comes off as ridiculous.

I am starting to see a value in a Monadology-ish kind of thing.... the
problem is, how would one prove it or "experience" it?

I am having a hard time expressing my thoughts right now.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to