On 7/01/11, 5:46 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham,
This is your metaphysics at its worst. You deny evolution, and give lip
service to "individuality" as the systematic form of existence. "one"
and "systematic" are not equivalent in evolution or even common parlance,
yet you use the 1 of mathematics as the metaphysical description of
reality.
You allow no other initial concepts and I can't argue or talk to you since
only you exist. It must be lonely Ham to bear such weight as the only
metaphysical arbiter of reality.
I do not deny evolution. But since it's only the mode of existence, not its
source, why should I equate "one" or unity with evolution? Oneness applies
only to the Absolute Source, where it defines metaphysical reality rather
than a numerical integer. I had always assumed that my correspondents
existed too. But, as you deny your individuality, I guess I've been talking
to the social or intellectual level instead of a human individual named Joe.
(No wonder I've had so much difficulty communicating with you!)
Thanks for the sarcastic sympathy anyway, Joe, whatever you are.
--Ham
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
