On 8/8/2012 2:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of anything
to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a clear conception
without affirming its existence. I suppose that will find adherents on
called the "Everything" list, but think it's just intellectual mush.
No, on your first statement. I clearly stated in the last post, that it's tricky
navigating between tendencies to believe/entrance/enthrall ourselves and denial/amnesia.
Because of this, a clear conception that you rightfully demand, cannot be sacrificed:
what happened in so called "fascist" governments? What is happening "war on drugs,
prohibition etc."? I consider these to be highly fruitful questions in the sense of
studying a paradox, but I refuse to position myself relative to their obvious absurdity
in a "are you for or against" sense.
Sure, they exist and of course we should study them. But in so doing we invariably have
to navigate tricky terrain between our capacity to entrance ourselves/reification and
denial, because we will believe or disbelieve to some degree in order for a clearer
conception to emerge. For any observer after observation nothing's void of belief to
some degree. People tend to call them, using evasive maneuver, "working hypothesis" in
their papers, dissertations etc. but this denial of belief implies the same spectrum.
Otherwise belief has to be subject to time constraints, which is of course nonsense.
OK, so is there anything that *doesn't* exist?
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