On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 7:35:27 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: > > > >> More relations, more food, better survival, sustainability, more access >> to more resources, more sophisticated approaches to ethics and problems of >> evil and law seem sexier than betting everything on a single ontological >> horse and policing its dance moves. >> > > Sure - except we *have, *as a society, bet everything on a single > ontological horse, and we *do* police its dance moves. There's one giant > ontological horse in town, in case you haven't noticed, and its name is > Materialism. And so I say, yes, let a thousand flowers bloom! But in order > to do that, we need to kill that damn horse. Then we might begin to > properly honour the true depth of meaning in this world, the subterranean > connections of karma, and the stories that shape the whole thing. I like to > think a relational ontology would give a lot more horses a lot more space > to dance. > >
What about just an ontology that includes *real experiences* (or qualia), that are *nonphysical* in the sense of being *outside of physics* (as practiced today)? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e928ad8-faaf-4b8c-85da-0507c76d501c%40googlegroups.com.
