Ourcellves? (Identity)

by GateKeeper , Friday, April 11, 2014, 15:32 (3878 days ago) @ romansh


> By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not.
> -true.-> Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. 
>--Not for me. Ultimately langue is used to describe ideas between humans. Langue is not "this" or that". "words" are, maybe. You may be having trouble for other reasons. I am not an expert, but maybe drop the notion that "langue" is "dualist" and let langue be "langue". With all its limitations. You guys here seem to understand quite well.-DWH does not follow this monist religion because it a world view that does not match all observations. When you make a lego truck, it is a lego truck. To say the truck is 'something else" because it is made up of only legos does not fit observations. Maybe toss out the notion that 'it is only legoes" and then try to describe what you mean.
 
> Not sure what you mean by "mute" ... I meant moot.
> 
Moot = mute for me. Some ideas are "less" debatable than others. The notion that we may be part of a living thing, as we understand life, is beginning to approach this point. The key word here is "less" it does not mean "can't be".--
> The data are: that cause and effect seems to rule ... Cause and effect seems to stretch in an interlocking web back to some event 14 Gy ago or perhaps some event femtoseconds ago.
> -yes. Cause and effect seem to rule. I agree ... now what?-I don't lock my conclusion to a philosophy. I let the answer come from the data. What mite these observations mean? -Based in these observations, is it more reasonable to say the universe is alive or that the universe is not alive. Please answer the question.
 
Maybe you think the question is too far a prediction off the curve? I Don't think it is. As long as we both understand that we both could be wrong, or right. I am the type of person that has no problem being wrong. It means I learnt something new. And that's way cool.--> Monism, dualism, pluralism and I suppose I should add nihilism are descriptions of the universe. While dualism and pluralism have their uses ultimately they don't seem accurate to me.
>-None of those philosophies are an accurate description of what I see. All together gives me a better one. In this respect I am like David. I pull back and deal with what I can. -you said "... to me". When you understand that those others include your data set (monism) you might understand why I don't follow monism as my world view (philosophy/religion). When I see you are including my data set (looper) I will ... well ... loop back. -When I talk to a monist I will talk monist. When I talk to a pluralist I talk pluralist. When either takes the data interpretation to far, I will question them.-We have an "emotional" component in us. This seems to based on the interactions of the universe. Although "emotion" is limiting when it comes to "logic" we need to understand that "emotion" must help guide "logic" for now. Your guy, albie said it best.-When I found this place I thought, "wow, two romanshs". But your writing style gives you away. do you recognize me yet Rom? by my writing style? its AB.