Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
aren't causal) only apparent. To go back to my orchestra analogy,
you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
composing the score in the first place.
Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations". L's
would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
(the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.
In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing
the actions of sets.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
> OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
> about L's metaphysics.
> 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
> 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
> atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
> realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
> acts "as if" there's no God.
Dear Roger,
It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special,
in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.
> I have trouble with this view
> in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can
> consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real.
Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations.
> L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
> world (the physical world you see and that of science),
> but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
> not real, only its monadic representation is real.
yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is
not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.
> I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
> a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).
Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
