Greeting Ham, I've just started my second reading of your thesis. I have questions. They may be dumb questions. I'd like to ask them as they come to me as I'm reading. It may be that they're explained in your thesis, but I've either missed the explanation or didn't understand it.
Time and Space: "Physical things like houses and stonesÂeven living trees and flowersÂare dimensional phenomena that relate to space and time in an objective world, not to being as such. Their supposed being is a consequence of their being experienced. And the tools we employ to confirm their existence will always produce data consistent with our experience because that is what they were designed to do." Now I've read Nargarjuna's MMK. He lays out a pretty convincing argument that time and space do not inherently exist. I believe that Nietzsche's survey in 'Early Greek Philosophy & Other Essays' contains an argument similar to Nargarjuna's. Why are _you_ excluding time and space from being experienced? Marsha 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/
