Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1947)	10/21/2000 5:47:41 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Re: I agree with your premise but not with your conclusion. Are you arguing from transcendence to existence, then saying our existence is not real, therefore transcendence does not exist? I would go the opposite direction and start with existence. I say it is real. My computer is real, Logic is real, the laws of physics are real, and personality along with morality exist. I agree that the only explanation for such a proximate reality is an ultimate reality. That such things do in fact appear real could of course be an illusion, but that is generally a polytheistic Hindu answer, is it not? Again, you've missed the crux! "...it is real. My computer is real, Logic is real, the laws of physics are real, and personality along with morality exist." *But what does "real"* mean in the first place?????** Think about it: just because you can see your computer on your desk, because you can touch it, hear it buzzing, and even smell its plastic fragrances, does not endow your computer with *existence! Again, let me hammer it in: "existence" is a semantic* property --not a physical one! I don't claim that your computer is unreal or not present, it is indeed on display upon your desk. Yet, that's not enough, IMO, to raise it to existence. Of course, the whole point boils down to my much more restrictive definition of "existence". In my view, there's only one Existence (or existing principle) and I've called it Absolute Sense. Now, from an Animist standpoint, we might assume that the Absolute Sense transcends everything and everybody but that does not mean that the Absolute Sense can be reached through cognitive groping... My favorite metaphor I use to explain the difference between mere presence and Existence is that of a river: think of the Mississipi river, what is it? Is the river limited to the water flow? Then, if it is, it's always a different river since we're dealing with a water flux of different water molecules. So the river can't be just the water.... Then is the river actually the riverbed proper? Well, then the snag is that, over the centuries, the river twists and turns as it erodes its banks.... So, inasmuch as the riverbed is modified so is the river? Finally, could a valid, legitimate definition of any river be a geometric one, that is, the straight line linking the river's source to its debouchure? Close, but no cigar: the river may, in places, meander backwards --meaning that some parts of the river no longer belong to it!? As you can see, all the above tentative definitions of a real river fall short of capturing the inner existence of the river. Only the Absolute River that encapsulates all the rivers --past and present-- in the universe bears existence for them.... Gus.