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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (25351)	10/8/1998 12:15:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<If my synonym for an affirmative ineffable concept is not the same as yours, does that invalidate the concept?>> I going to make up a new version of "I think, therefore I am": "I understand the word "ineffable," therefore ineffable-ness is. I believe we agree that "ineffable-ness" exists. But I think we differ in our reaction to that quality. I believe it describes a limitation of our perceiving or sensing or comprehending abilities, and that if we were able incrementally to advance on these fronts, less and less of what we experience would seem to us "ineffable." (And in fact, there are many phenomena that at one time made us feel we were in the presence of the ineffable, and no longer do--lightning, for example, or hallucination, or red tides.) And I think the adjective "positive" placed by you before the word "ineffable" results entirely from projection of your own assumptions or hopes or mood or temporal lobe activities onto the unknown. P.S. I won't be able to reply to anyone for a few days-- going away. E.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (25351)	10/8/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: Craig Richards	Respond to of 108807

Rick, Trying to describe or label the ineffable is like trying to touch the moon with a stick. Good luck. Go ahead and try if you want, but I'd rather watch this time around. I submit that general concept is the concept of a deity, and if you affirm "it", but allow for "it" being ineffable, it would appear you're not an atheist afterall. You lost me here. You're saying that if I agree that there are ineffable mysteries to life, I can't be an atheist? Your logic is ineffable to me. Does that mean that you're God? <g>