On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

        I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't 
think we
        can live more than one second without some belief in some God.

    I disagree.  We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and material 
    and people (including ourselves).  That is what we all bet on and evolution 
    built into us.  We may hypothesize different fundamental ontologies, but 
it's not
    necessary and it's certainly not necessary to *believe in* them.


Here, a more aesthetic perspective as I can't really take sides here:

Perhaps belief/disbelief is like color spectrum?

For instance, regarding the facism example: I might not believe in it at all in the sense of "standing behind it".

But there's an enormous difference between believing there is such a form of government as fascism and believing IN fascism.

But every time I use the term, I substantiate it consciously,

No you don't.  You refer to it or imagine it - but you don't make it a 

even though I know that it does not even approximate standing for a cohesive or consistent social or political concept. The more I study it and make differentiations, the more I substantiate it.

The idea is sort of like "don't think pink elephant". It's not that we believe in them in the sense that we'd vote accordingly. Yet, somebody could spend their whole lives investigating "pink elephants" in literature, and even though they would never admit to believing in them, I would still maintain that they do, as they substantiate it more or less consciously.

But now you've changed the meaning of "substantiate"; thus continuing to fuzz up the meaning of words.

By concretizing a thought, like a carpenter or sculptor in physical terms, it transforms us.

But saying you don't believe in something is NOT making it concrete. Making and instance out of concrete is concretizing it. You're taking metaphors and turning them into ontologies by redefining words. This way is madness...or mysticism.

Even if we don't in the least bit "like, stand behind, or believe to be true", we make it truer and will increasingly believe it, albeit unconsciously if we want to stay in denial about doing something we don't like.

So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of anything because to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a clear conception of it without affirming its existence. I suppose that will find adherents on something called the "Everything" list, but think it's just intellectual mush.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to