On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:10:07 AM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> wrote: [Arlo had said] Umm.. name me something that is not "harmonious with reality" or "attuned to the world"...
[Platt] Name something? How about "God?" According to the atheists among us, that's something "not harmonious with reality." [Arlo] How about, since "attuned to the world" and "harmonious with reality" was YOUR claim, name something ACCORDING TO YOU? Or is evasion the best you can offer when pressed about your own words? [Platt] Of course, if they want to say otherwise, I'm all ears. :-) [Arlo] I've never said anything was or was not "harmonious with reality" or "attuned to the world", so I can't say "otherwise". The labels are inane, that's the point. But, again, since they are YOURS, and you've offered a few things that ARE, why don't you tell us what you'd say ARE NOT? [Mark] Sometimes I get caught up in the semantics of what you guys say. I think I agree with Arlo in terms of the insanity, but I have come to the point where everything is insane, so there you go. If Reality is everything that there is, then it is impossible for something not be harmonious with Reality. It would seem to me that Quality, at its inception in ZAMM argues that labels of Truth have no meaning outside of opinions. There is no doubt that quality has to be a matter of opinion, by english definition. So we have to differentiate it from Quality. Quality is the ground for there being any quality at all. In this way, all sense of quality is harmonious with Quality. Quality dictates that levels of quality exist (which would include Ham's negation of essence, by the way). A world without Quality cannot exist, whereas a world without Truth already does. Now if we are talking about personal harmony with reality, then yes, for some "god" is not harmonious with their reality, but not with Reality. By analogy, God must be absolute and to dispute it would imply that one is speaking about something that is outside of Reality. In this way, as has been done through the ages, if we distinguish the uncapitalized as the personal and the capitalized as the absolute (as in God), and by capitalizing we are thus speaking of things that have no antonym. What is the opposite of Quality, a flat plain infinitely thin and infinitely long? A complete void? Reality cannot have an opposite because even it's opposite is Real. God, in the most expansive sense cannot have an opposite, so one cannot argue against it. It just is. I noticed that Wittgenstein was mentioned. It was of interest to me since I just struggled through his stuff (with a lot of help from what others interpret from his work). I came to the conclusion that he went through two phases. The first was when he tried to define the limits of our reality using the structure of language. In the second, he just looked at groups of phrases in the same way an art critic would look at groups of paintings. There was no overarching system to his latter approach. And so, if this is indeed an accepted way of looking at Wittgenstein, he was just talking about Quality at the end. IMHO, of course, Mark On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 08:45 AM [email protected] wrote: > >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos >X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO >X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -1.638 > >On 9 Feb 2010 at 21:51, Steven Peterson wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > [Platt] >> > >> > No. Mathematics is just as attuned to the world as hammers, screw drivers >> > and other useful tools. "Attuned to the world" means "harmonious with >> > reality." >> > >> > [Arlo] >> > Umm.. name me something that is not "harmonious with reality" or "attuned >> > to the world"... >> > >> > >> I think we are all stumped. I guess math isn't unique in this way. > >Hey Steve, > >Name something? How about "God?" According to the atheists among >us, that's something "not harmonious with reality." Of course, if they >want to say otherwise, I'm all ears. :-) > >Regards, >Platt > >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/ > > 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/ 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/
