Hi John,
Le 07-janv.-08, à 18:12, John Mikes wrote (to Hal Ruhl)
>
> Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
> though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
> dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
> like
Hey Günther, thanks for the comments.
On Jan 9, 6:43 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
Hi John:
At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
>on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
>'meaning' of texts):
>HR:
>"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
>JM:
>does anything like 'completion'
Günther:
your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?) box of nothingness. It was long ago when we discussed
these things with Hal, I changed my views a lot since then - as well,
as Hal also developed a comprehensive theory of his own. I wrote a
macama on
Gevin,
thanks for your comprehensive - and very understandable - explanation about
"nothing" (no pun) and its qualia-circumstances.
My post to Hal targeted "nothingness" as differentiated from
"nothing". The concept, not the qualia or nature of its adjectival
meaning.
I regret to have missed so fa
Hi,
> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, unifo
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
> no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
> one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always
> asked and must be answered.
On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> different angles - at the
Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
HR:
"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
JM:
does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality?
Hi John:
At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
>Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
>though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
>dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
>like:
>
>"...In the Beginning the
Hal, me again (John):
Do you seriously mean "How many Nothings"?
John
On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hal,
>
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
> though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
> dating back
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
like:
"...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
observer of
12 matches
Mail list logo
