On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
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
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
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
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
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at