> If it is not a null set, then please indicate what things belong in the
> realm of "having no reality."
Every unreal thing (and every unreal non-thing) belong in the realm of
unreality.
>You can't have it both ways-- either reality
> is all encompassing in which case the term holds no discretionary meaning,
> or there are things that are not a part of reality, in which case reality
> has limits.
The limits of reality are irrelevant to the fact that there is only one reality.
> This circular game of semantics is getting less and less interesting for me,
> so maybe we should let it drop from our conversation, unless you have new
> insight to provide regarding the usefulness of your definition of the term
> 'reality.'
Good idea.
Just remember that there is only one reality, and you'll have learned something
significant.
--J. R.
"Something beckons within the reach of each of us
to save heroic genius. Find it, and do it.
For as goes heroic genius, so goes humankind."
--Alligator Grundy, _Analects of Atman_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:58 MDT