On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

One must assume a mereology (whole-part relational scheme) in any ontological theory or else there is no way to explain or communicate it or about it.

That is exactly what I told you. Any universal system has a mereology. But your existence theory has not, as you disallow properties for your "neutral" existence. So you are making my point here. Numbers have a rich mereology, actually infinitely many.
Dear Bruno,

Let me ask a question: Is there a name in your repertoire that denotes the totality of all that exists? I denote this as Existence it-self or Dasein. Does it have any particular properties or is the question of it having (or not having) properties simply inappropriate? How do you believe properties come to be associated with objects, concepts, things, entities, etc.



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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