It's not my last post. I debate this subject all the time and enjoy it.
Yes, how we see things does change what exists or "what is". This is
because we live in a world of language, objectifications, and mental
abstractions. We do not relate to things so much as definitions of
things. How or what we define is therefore important.
The question is what is there beyond our definitions of things. Whatever
is there is known to us by our interaction with it, and our interaction
is enhanced by use of our definitions concerning it.
The cosmos does not "act" any way at all. Of itself the cosmos does
nothing. The cosmos does not even exist unless we say it exists. You are
the center of your world. It conforms to all the rules and demands you
set for it. I am not speaking mysticism, or New Age, or anything of the
sort. Simply put, when a person dies, that world comes to an end because
there is no longer a mind or active agent to consider it.
Concepts come and concepts go. Those having usefulness remain.
I challenge you to tell me what objective reality is. If you believe it
exists you should be able to say what it is. Feel free to use as many
screens full of text as necessary.
>From: Loree Thomas <loreetg@yahoo.com>
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Ok... my last post on this,
>
>--- "David G. McDivitt" <dmcdivitt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What if the term or objectification "gravity" had
>> not evolved.
>
>You insisted in your last post we weren't playing
>"what if" scenarios... but we'll go with it.
>
>What if? Nothing, that's what. Gravity would still
>work the same, no matter what you called it or how you
>look at it... It IS...
>
>That's what objective reality (the only reality that
>is actually real) is all about. (I dislike these kinds
>of discussions because the force me to write things
>like "real reality"...)
>
>This is the crux of our argument. How WE perceive
>things doesn't effect reality. It would be the same
>if we never existed.
>
>> What if
>> Newton played with electricity enough to call it
>> "electromagnetic
>> attraction" instead. How would that have affected
>> the cosmological
>> models we have today?
>
>What difference does it make? The cosmos would still
>act the same... Models aren't facts. Beliefs aren't
>facts.
>
>You stated that facts and beliefs are the same things.
> They aren't.
>
>Loree
-- http://www.geocities.com/dmcdivitt_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT