lol, I'm sure everyone has heard this too many times.... but it is one of
those things that most people seem to humbly agree about... and it still
sounds funny and interesting.... any thoughts?:
"something unknown is doing something unknown" (sir arthur edington)_
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think physics is a dead end. I think they know that.
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at