Hi Matt, What I hear is a thoughtful questioning of logical reality. I see it as a personal journey. If one can find like minded philosophers to join in, so much the better. Much more is created though a group. It would seem to me that any encapsulated logical system will have flaws as seen from outside such a pattern. This does not negate the philosophy, it simply has taken another path.
Terms such as life, and nature are no different from God, or essence. They rest on the self. We have a clash between so called objective proof (as typified by the sciences) and subjective proof as typified by philosophy. There is also mystical proof, the basis of which is Unbelief. This type of proof may be outside both objective and subjective criteria. It may simply just be. Certainly don't take my word for it, for they are just words. Go find out for yourself. Cheers Willblake2 On Aug 29, 2009, at 7:21:46 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: Now, one _can_ call the human organism a "system." Yeah, sure, easy as pie now to answer the question, "can you create a system which includes the two?"--nature already did. That's my favorite part about Douglas Adams' story--the computer system that was going to tell us the Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything was, the Earth. But calling a human a "system," and building from there, doesn't seem to get to the nub of my concern. "So, is an all revealing system of systems possible?" Sure, call it "life," and you can rest easy and go do the dishes. "Many of those in deep mystical or religious or philosophic thought believe so, and have found it." Yeah, but why should we take their word for it? Are you going to take mine? Matt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
