John blows the whistle and calls foul: Ham:
> Why isn't 'Being and Becoming' a valid interpretation of experiential > reality? It certainly represents the existentialist position of Heidegger > and Sartre. Moreover, it also takes "nothingness" into account, as > "becoming" infers coming into existence from nothing. > John: Wtf? What happened to ex niliho nilo fit? I'd say you just uttered an impossibility. Becoming infers change. Being changes into something different, and we call that process "becoming". I still say there's no such thing as nothing. Being=SQ Becoming=DQ And that's all there is. > The "error" I allude to is the concept of intellect as a supra-human > "domain" rather than a function of human reasoning. I fail to see a true distinction between "supra-human domains" and "functions of human reasonings". > > Hey, but what do I know? I'm only the elephant in a room of Pirsigians. > > Respectfully submitted, > Ham > > Well there's a peanut to hold you over. I'm still working through our last dialogue and need to finish that up. Hold on! John 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/md/archives.html
