Re: Damn!


The Chozen Few wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137277925.933525.235630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > The Chozen Few wrote:
> >> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1137262654.543274.98910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > The Chozen Few wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip for brevity]
> >>

....

> >>
> >> The "pudding" I'm referring to is the entire mass/energy universe.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >> I see no
> >> way to prove one way or the other whether that's all there is.
> >
> > Pragmatically it doesn't matter. As long as you are talking about the
> > "universe" whatever there *is* is part of it. Whatever there *isn't*
> > doesn't make any difference.
>
>
> Depends on whether mass/energy is all that there is.

"whatever there *is* is part of it [universe]". That's what "universe"
means - everything that is.

And I think we both know/suspect that since the arising of quantum
theorizing the notions of "mass" and "energy" have a quaint feel to
them. :-)

>
>
> >> But the fact
> >> that I see anything at all and am *aware* of that act of seeing (and also
> >> aware of my awareness, etc.) indicates to me that it *may* not be all
> >> there
> >> is.
> >
> > That's interesting. So being aware of your surroundings, as just about
> > any living thing is, indicates that your surroundings *may* not be all
> > there is?
>
>
> I'm not absolutely certain that all other living things (including you) are
> aware of their surroundings in the way that I am.

Yes you are (or should be). It comes from the 'E' in ETS. Evolution
says we're all pretty much the same when it comes to such a survival
oriented area as "awareness of surroundings". Lack of 'success' in
this regard means you wouldn't be here at all as your preliminary
'designs' would have been lunch for something.

> I'm also not absolutely
> certain that non-living things aren't also aware of their surroundings in
> some way.

They do have an 'awareness' in a simplistic systemic sense. But they
didn't evolve so you have outstripped them. Fundamentally though your
awareness is built on their awareness so, in that sense it is very
primitively the same.

>
>
> > Or is it the being aware of yourself as part of the
> > surroundings which indicates that your surroundings *may* not be all
> > there is?
>
>
> "...The stars stand around me
> Like gold eyes. I can no longer
> Tell where I begin and leave off.
> The faint breeze in the dark pines
> And the invisible grass
> The tipping earth, swarming stars
> Have an eye that sees itself."
>
> -- Kenneth Rexroth (from "The Heart of Herakles")

Ah yep.

>
>
> >> Objectivity about anything (including the entire universe) implies
> >> something beyond the object, even though it doesn't *prove* that
> >> something.
> >
> > It doesn't even imply it in my book. The thing that is all things -
> > universe - doesn't imply there is a thing it is itself part of. Just
> > the opposite in fact.
> >
> >>
> >> Somewhat in this context, maybe you'll remember this exchange:
> >
> > Groan.
> >
> > 14 August 2004
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> **************************************************************
> >>
> >> > k(IA): My "dogmatism" is more or less "something is real if it can
> >> affect
> >> > something else".
> >>
> >>
> >> > TCF: Seems to me the main problem with that idea is that if
> >> everything is
> >> > considered as one big something with no something else to affect,
> >> then
> >> > nothing is real.
> >>
> >>
> >> > k(IA): Obviously it affects the considerer.
> >>
> >>
> >> > TCF: Obviously, but given the assumptions of materialism, the
> >> considerer is
> >> > part of the one big something being considered, not something else.
> >
> > Yes. Being aware of yourself as part of your surroundings. From
> > above.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > k(IA): But I get your drift - if there are no distinctions drawn (no
> >> > things) then you have a kind of ontological 'heat death'. Erase the
> >> > considerer and there is "no thing".
> >>
> >>
> >> > TCF: In this case, the considerer appears to be self-erasing.
> >>
> >>
> >> > k(IA): [no response, possibly because of temporary self-erasure]
> >
> > Actually due to ontological humor. :-)
>
>
> Well, I suppose if you're going to be possibly self-erasing, you might as
> well have a sense of humor about it.
>
>
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/6gyhn
> >>
> >>
> >> k(IA): "possibly".
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/84utc
> >>
> >> **************************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >> > An empty glass is pretty dogmatic about not having water in it.
> >>
> >> Not unless you want to impute awareness to the glass, and my question is
> >> whether a person is necessarily empty who's dogmatic about not having a
> >> soul.
> >
> > Oh come on Few. If it's real it matters. If it's not real it
> > doesn't. Soul doesn't matter.
>
>
> Possibly it doesn't. And possibly even if it could matter, it could
> alternatively be self-erasing.

Don't get all goofy on me. :-)

>
>
> > Any glass is pretty dogmatic about not having pink unicorn piss in it.
> > If the glass could speak that is.
>
>
> *If* the glass could speak, I'd be less interested in the specifics of what
> it might or might not say about pink unicorn piss than in (a) the general
> fact that it could speak, in (b) whether or not it was aware that it could
> speak, and in (c) its motivations for wanting to speak if it was aware.
>
>
> >> >> A theocrat is
> >> >> at least able to acknowledge his own dogmatism without revealing too
> >> >> much
> >> >> (from his point of view) about the way his particular brand of pixie
> >> >> has
> >> >> been "assembled."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Damn!
    ... So being aware of your surroundings, ... >> considerer is ... >>> An empty glass is pretty dogmatic about not having water in it. ... > If the glass could speak that is. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: A Martial Arts Self Defense Question
    ... you maintain awareness of your surroundings. ... able to approach your vehicle without you being aware of it. ... How can you spot a potential miscreant? ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT Fun Video
    ... awareness. ... don`t put yourself in a situtation to need to protect ... surroundings to be concerned about. ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: A Martial Arts Self Defense Question
    ... you maintain awareness of your surroundings. ... able to approach your vehicle without you being aware of it. ... How can you spot a potential miscreant? ...
    (rec.martial-arts)