You replied: "No it's not, at least not exclusively."
>>>I'm interested in what the other possibilities might be?
-----------------
It's a truism greg. It's one I composed for thread discussion. Rather than discussing the merits of the statement itself, you began struggling with the concern that it must be based on some ideology, one that I was not being forthright about. You eventually settled on Pantheistic Monism or maybe you were guided to it by your church teachings. You found that the statement aligns ok, or at least doesn't contradict the ideology. You conclude, mistakenly, that it confirms your earlier declaration which attributed a world view, 'Pantheistic Monism' to me. The attribution of a world view apparently being your primary, maybe your only goal in this entire strand of discussion.
Statements align, or at least don't contradict truisms as their similarities exist in various modes of thought. So that statement would not contradict world religions or other ways of thinking unless it were to point out a fundamental flaw in one of them, which I don't believe it does, at least not for the major ideologies ... or, if the statement itself is not a valid truism, it would not align or we would find contradictions. You could have picked any of the major accepted ideologies and made the same claim as to alignment. But, as I've been repeatedly pointing out it does not advance the discussion at all.
This is one of the reasons, I have been encouraging you to drop the insistence that I am bound to some secret worldview. Now you've picked one for me and you feel bound to make it stick. What happens if it doesn't work out? Well, let's not even consider that because it might be viewed as a failure and that would be unacceptable. So the tangent takes on a life of its own ... 'you're this' ... 'no I'm not' ... 'are too' ... 'am not' etc. Rather silly don't you think? Maybe not, but I've been unable to understand what more could come of it and you've not hinted at anything. |
