The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is
true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a
switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric
teachings. It is
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:08, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is
ought to be and Aristotle is is in
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, you can square the square root of any number to test its
accuracy,
but there are a variety of algorithms used to calculate pi.
Which is correct ? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
The value obtained is assumed to be true if
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:38, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
There is ontological genocide here of everything but numbers.
Yes. It is not so a problem, as what we consider real from inside is
not the ontology, but the bigger epistemological reality which emerges
from the ontology, whatever
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their
own agendas.
We have a top level agenda:
On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If
it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not
governed by a switch that is put on when
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, you can square the square root of any number to test its accuracy,
but there are a variety of algorithms used to calculate pi.
Which is correct ? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Back to the language-misunderstandings!
*There is a problem* does it mean *NOT HERE*, but *THERE* do I see the
problem, or rather (as I do guess):
- *a problem exists* - ?
German is not English. *Das DASEIN* is not the infinitive with a local
monitor,:( da sein) rather a composite *NOUN.
*
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
But humans are not entirely governed from
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand 2+2 = 4.
2+2=4 is easy.
I understand 2+2=4 is quasi infinitely more complex.
Dear Bruno,
As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more
On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand 2+2 = 4.
2+2=4 is easy.
I understand 2+2=4 is quasi infinitely more complex.
Dear Bruno,
On 8/19/2012 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand 2+2 = 4.
2+2=4 is easy.
I understand 2+2=4 is quasi
On 8/19/2012 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You don't really 'come to the idea' at all though, you assume it
from the start. There is no theory for why or how numbers would
dream, only the assumption that they do.
[BM]
Here I absolutely disagree. The theory is that I am
13 matches
Mail list logo
