FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-14-2002, 04:00 PM   #171
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by jaliet:
<strong>
Is it your contention that Involution is always Possible? Why sould something be possible only if
its possibility leaves room for the possibility of involution?
On another point, I think the explanation you have given (all that stuff about evolution and involution) is irrelevant as far as the question asked by Draygomb is concerned.</strong>
Yes of course involution is always possible or evolution could not be. They are just opposites describing the direction of an illusory existence of which only the essence is real -- or history would not repeats itself nor would civilizations ever fall. It can also be said that that is the reason why only Beauty and Truth are real.

Here was the question in which I understood the "existence of Existence" to mean that things are as they are because they are meant to be that way which is after their essence of Existence:
<strong>
Why should the existence of Existence necessitate the existence of Being?</strong>

My answer was that if the existence of Existance only necessitates the existence of Being no change will come about but just a replication of the present existing Being will be generated. If the existence of Being changes the essence of Existence must change prior to the existence of Being can change. In the case of involution there will be a decrease and so the essence of Existence for the existence of Being will be less than the existence of Existence we started with.

If this was not true the Prime Mover would not be in charge of our destiny.

It may seem irrelevant but it is true that if the Prime Mover is indeed the Prime Mover we are not in charge of our own destiny which explains why wisdom can increase and decrease and in the end is why civilizations do rise and fall (yet Truth will always stand).
 
Old 03-14-2002, 04:06 PM   #172
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 665
Post

Albert,

Aye Carimba! This is getting confusing! From what I understand of your preliminary definitions, God, if he exists, cannot be a thing. For to be a thing is to be contingent. Correct?

Can you also provide a couple more definitions before we proceed? What do you mean by the terms "essence" and "being." I apologise if you have stated the definitions elsewhere. I did a quick look and couldn't find anything.

Also, if a cube of ice melts, does it become a new thing? Or is it the same thing in another form? Which convention do you prefer?
sir drinks-a-lot is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 04:07 PM   #173
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Ender the Theothanatologist:
<strong>

snip/

But ideas themselves (logic, reason, language) are faint copies of the impressions that they are nearly always less lively, less vivacious, and less "present." In this epistemological model i've presented, emotions are not Abstract thoughts but "original facts."

~WiGGiN~

</strong>
Hence the Stoic conscience as opposed to the "fuzzy feelings" that surround eros and religious flattery (love).

I like the "trainer image" and it seems that Jaliet is waiting for exposure so he can go for the kill. Don't hold your breath.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>
 
Old 03-14-2002, 06:24 PM   #174
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: secularcafe.org
Posts: 9,525
Post

Pity poor Albert. Jaliet, John Page, Ender, and all the rest come at him from the rational, logical, and materialistic angle- and if he retreats too far, he finds me, poking him with my mystical-pantheistic pitchfork.

And I don't think there is any tenable middle ground for him to stand on.

I want to address some of Albert's statements taken from the past couple of pages, and a few from Amos too. Bold are Albert's words, unless I specify it is Amos I'm quoting.

Ergo, if there is a God, and He is worthy of His name, He is not reachable, but outreaching. Practice all the yoga you want; eat all the yogurt you can stand; be as mystical or smart, or have a tribe of gurus showing you the way; none of this should get you one inch closer to Him.

Gurus and mystics are elitists. I don't care if they don't mean to be. They are. If they are the genuine articles, then they are poster children for an arrogant god that disgusts me.

This is why I find the concept of myself being a mystic or anyone being a guru (and all means and methods of seeking God) repugnant. It is arrogant to imagine that God can be sought experientially. He is the seeker. It's enough if we allow ourselves to be found.


Albert, I agree that anyone who uses the idea of God for one-upsmanship or financial gain is a despicable fraud. This includes all stripes of priests, shamen, witch doctors, and theologians. However, if you are condemning "all means and methods of seeking God" are you not condemning yourself (and incidentally all us honestly questioning unbelievers) thereby? Are you a fideist, one who simply has faith in Faith, with no connections to the material world, no 'signs and wonders'? I thought that was a Catholic heresy.

And please expound on the "poster children for an arrogant God that disgusts me." I find myself fascinated by that statement.

Existence cannot be self-substantiating. Something beyond existence is required as an explanation, as a raison d'entre for existence. That something is Being. Being is another word for Yahweh God.

"SomeTHING beyond existence"? Can't you see that this is nonsensical? "Thing" is an existent entity. If we can speak of it, it exists (even if only as a concept within our minds.)

To the above, add your response to me saying "I think you must prove that there is a Prime Mover that always acts, and is never acted upon."

What you assert here is precisely what the Catholic Church asserts about the nature of God. Welcome to the fold of the Catholic intellectual tradition that says God is Pure Act without any admixture of potentiality (actus purus sine omni permixtione potentiae).

However, you are wrong to say I need to prove that God "always acts." I need only assert it as a logical necessity derived definitively from the concept of God. In other words, if God exists, it rationally follows that His nature is actus purus.


Let me get this straight. God is Being. He is also 'pure action'- Doing. And both of these are completely 'other' than Existence. Right?

The problem with contingency, philosophically, is that it leads to an infinite regression, which is logically impossible.

Philosophy and logic both require words. Without words, neither would exist- either as concepts or as (of course) words.

Now, by all the theology and philosophy I know, the most central nature of God is infinity. His power, knowledge, and benevolence are all supposedly infinite. (Do you disagree? Wait, you can't. It's doctrine.)

Yet your above statement indicates that infinite *regression* is logically impossible. I think that anytime we try to talk about infinity, we find it is 'logically impossible'. Not countable- not measurable- not comprehensible- not speakable.

Indeed, you agree with me.

We can’t speak of such things.

He is absolutely undetectable by Creation.


"The Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao."

Another quote, made popular by a seventies TV show-

"Looked for, it cannot be seen. Listened for, it cannot be heard. Felt for, it cannot be touched."

And remember Eckhart- "Even if I say, 'Thou! Oh Thou!' I say too much."

Albert, admit it. You're a mystic, or else you are just confused.

And speaking of confused-

Amos:
Just as Jesus told Peter to tell noone that he was a Christian, so should we tell noone that we are Christians . . . for the test of a mystic is how well he can keep it a secret.


OK, I'm confused. (But not surprised- this is, after all, Amos.) "...so should we tell noone that we are Christians...?" How Eristic! Yet, how un-mystical! Zen masters everywhere are laughing fit to bust.

And, just to prove that I can also sow a bit of discord-

Amos:
It may seem irrelevant but it is true that if the Prime Mover is indeed the Prime Mover we are not in charge of our own destiny


Albert, having seen some of your voluminous output defending free will- what do you think of this?

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>
Jobar is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 07:05 PM   #175
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,018
Angry

Dear Jaliet,
Quote:

You don't like people who do not appreciate your warped sense of humour.


Let's see if I can figure this out syllogistically.
1) YOU SAID you don't like my humor.
2) YOU SAID I don't like people who don't like my humor.
3) Ergo, I don't like you.

YOU SAID IT; not me! Why are you so intent on putting yourself down?

Quote:

If you are accustomed to telling Dogs "sit" and they sit "stand" and they stand "shame on you" and they feel ashamed, then you are on the wrong territory. I don't do what Albert tells me to do.


Now is that the kind of attitude conducive to being trained? You said you are a trainer, and it shows. Your job is to get those in your charge to do what you tell them to do, but, by god, you're not going to take what you dish out. If wombats could speak, and they laid on you the rebellious little snit you just laid on me, wouldn't you be crushed? So let's compromise. I promise you that I won't tell you what to do, and you promise me that you will try to think. Deal?

Quote:

Albert, you fail to give us a coherent explanation of how you come to believe in God.


Special! Just cuz you just misrepresented the thousands of words I've expended on the subject, here's the Reader’s Digest version of how I believe in God:

1) My sensory inputs allows me to, in good conscience, infer that the things I experience really exists.
2) Conversely, things that exist allow me to likewise infer that their existence is really my experience.
3) Ergo, what I can't experience that exists is necessarily being experienced.
4) What I can experience, I can only experience indirectly as information.
5) Ergo, everything must be experienced directly by being and I call God the Being Who does this.

I promised not to drift into metaphysics, but what the hell. Without experiencing something, I am nothing. Experience is existence, not the other way around. Experience is the charmed particle of my metaphysics. So whatever exists is being experienced. 99.9999% of what exists as Albert, cannot be even indirectly experienced by Albert. Ergo, Albert's existence (and all things in existence) is necessarily being experienced by something other than what is in existence, that is, by something outside of existence, something that IS BEING. The common term for It is God.

For the literary-impaired who stumble logically over the following illustration:
Quote:

Only gravity and little boys move rocks. But many many things, from ice cream cones to bicycles move little boys.


I resubmit my thought in a more pedestrian format:

Quote:

Living things are affected by many many things. Inanimate things are affected by relatively less things.


You assert:
Quote:

To experience requires consciousness. Any assertion to the contrary is a waste of time.


So when you're unconscious, I'm free to do whatever I want to you? Don't you realize that virtually all that you are doing at this very moment and every moment of your life, you are doing unconsciously? Yet you claim you don't experience it? You're not conscience of breathing or regulating your heartbeat, yet you experience these things.

I'm formulating my defense now:
Quote:

Albert: Your honor, he was asleep at the time I drove a herd of wildebeests over him and the deceased is on record for not experiencing what he is unconscious of. Ergo, he did not experience his murder and so I cannot be his murderer. Plus, your honor, he said it was a waste of time to argue to the contrary.

Judge: Well time's a wasting and lunch is getting cold. Case dismissed!


You assert:
Quote:

There is information whether there is someone there to detect it or not.


Really!? If you’re so willing to accept that groundless solipsism, why do I suspect that you will hypocritically deny this equally groundless solipsism? "God is everywhere, whether there is someone there to detect Him or not."

Quote:

Juliet:
"Please provide... books that support this assertion (Yahweh God = I Am Who Am)."

Albert:
"Exodus 3:13-14"

Juliet:
"This is not a religious discussion. I am not a christian and your quotations from the bible are totally wasted on me."


We can conclude from this exchange one of two things:
1) The Bible is not a book.
2) Juliet's non-Christian existence blinds him to the existence of books that are Christian.

Then, in your very next sentence, you have the gall to say:
Quote:

We can do more than detect. We are human beings. We can think. We can reason and we can imagine.


Some of us can. But you, who can't even detect that the Bible is a book, would do better to keep silent about the possibility that you can. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>
Albert Cipriani is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 07:34 PM   #176
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 163
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
<strong>Dear Jaliet,
[/b]

Some of us can. But you, who can't even detect that the Bible is a book

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</strong>
Sorry to butt in, but I just want to say LOL! Cheers to the traditional Catholic.
Ron Singh is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 08:26 PM   #177
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Jobar:
<strong>
OK, I'm confused. (But not surprised- this is, after all, Amos.) "...so should we tell noone that we are Christians...?" How Eristic! Yet, how un-mystical! Zen masters everywhere are laughing fit to bust.</strong>

Thanks Jobar, and maybe it is true that Zen masters are laughing but not at me because masters are not mystics. Masters are gnostics and the gnostic can just speak the truth or he would not be gnostic.

Mystics are masters-in-training and must speak from the mountaintop what they receive in the dark but never for their own glorification (tell noone), much like Jesus when he told his apostels to tell noone. From Mt.10:26-27 "Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing hidden that will not become known. What I tell you in the darkness speak in the light. What you hear in private, proclaim from the housetops."

Sorry you didn't need a sermon but there it is.<strong>

And, just to prove that I can also sow a bit of discord-

Amos:
It may seem irrelevant but it is true that if the Prime Mover is indeed the Prime Mover we are not in charge of our own destiny


</strong>
Good point, but as I have argued before, the only reason we do not have a free will is because we are divided in our own mind and since both mind are ours we must at least pretend that we do have a free will. Within the fold of the Catholic Church our freedom of will can be encouraged because in our journey we are directed towards the right end which is the mystery of salvation. From there we are on our own (which is why we are "sola fide)."

When we arrive there we are set free from religion and the bondage of slavery and sin ("son of man has no place to lie his head," Mt.8:20) and ("he who is in Christ cannot sin" 1Jn.3:9), and if, in fact, if we seek our justificatin in the law after we have been set free from the bondage of slavery and sin we will have already fallen from Gods favor, etc. (Gal.5:4 paraphrased).

We become the Prime Mover when we are in charge of our own destiny as in "my Lord and my God" after faith has been annihilated with the removal of doubt*** 'who' was the twin of Jesus-the-mystic now become Jesus the Christ (gnostic). Notice here that Jesus did not become [fully] Christ until after resurrection.

*** since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other, when Thomas-the- doubter was removed also Peter-the-faither was left naked.

The difference between "Free Will" and "free will" is not more than a matter of perspective . . . wherefore, as I argue, the Free Will argument belongs to the Freeman -- who himself is a Determinist (to put the icing on the cake).

Amos
 
Old 03-15-2002, 06:40 AM   #178
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Post

Albert, I will respond to your recent post, which does not remotely constitute a comprehensive comprehension to my responses to you.
I will resist the thought that mental lassitude is setting in for you. If that is the case, just ask for a break. You mentioned you needed drugs to keep adrift earlier I hope you are ok?
First, I am disapointed that you can be so dishonest in an openly-shameless manner Albert. This in itself is not so bad except I expected a traditional Catholic to hold honesty as an important virtue.
How have you been dishonest?
earlier You said this:
Quote:
16) The experiential Being of existence is a philosophical term for God (Yahweh = I Am Who Am).
and I responded:
Quote:
Please provide links to philosophical sites or books that support this assertion.
You said its a philosophical term and I asked for philosophical links or books to support your claim.
later You claimed that I said:
Quote:
Juliet:
"Please provide... books that support this assertion (Yahweh God = I Am Who Am)."
Look at how shamelessly you have removed my words and replaced them with three dots in order to put the rest of the words out of context and shift my meaning to suit your depraved schemes.
Have you sunk this low Albert?
Frankly, the idea is not for you to convince us, but just for you to defend your concept of Gods existence.
Whats the big deal, You dont have to sacrifice your self-respect to make a point. Ultimately, I dont care whether you sacrifice your dignity or not, and its not for me to tell you what to sacrifice, but what you have done is a dishonest tactic and is not good for an honest debate.
I hope you shall desist from such cheap and low-down tactics in future. They destroy your credibility and give the idea that you have run out of ammo and cant get yourself out of the corner you have painted yourself into.

Quote:
Special! Just cuz you just misrepresented the thousands of words I've expended on the subject, here's the Reader’s Digest version of how I believe in God:

1) My sensory inputs allows me to, in good conscience, infer that the things I experience really exists.
2) Conversely, things that exist allow me to likewise infer that their existence is really my experience.
3) Ergo, what I can't experience that exists is necessarily being experienced.
4) What I can experience, I can only experience indirectly as information.
5) Ergo, everything must be experienced directly by being and I call God the Being Who does this.
1-4 are fine 5 is not related to them however and thus the argument fails.
Another tired case of irrelevant conclusion from Albert the Traditional Catholic.
Thank you very much.
Quote:
Without experiencing something, I am nothing.
Calm down Albert. We wont take away your ability to experience something.
Without experiencing something, you remain lacking the experience of experiencing that something. You can't be nothing because YOU implies you are something already.
Quote:
Experience is existence, not the other way around
Experience is NOT existence Albert. These are simple English words and they have very distinct meanings. If you want to go for one of your pseudo-philosophical escapades on a non-existent magic carpet, you gonna have to do better than just throw in phrases that sound philosophical.
Experience could be existence, but as it is, you have not demonstrated that it is.
Put in a little effort Albert.
Quote:
Experience is the charmed particle of my metaphysics
Irresponsible statement. Provide links or philosophical books / authors that support this outlandish statement.
This is not a poetry class. I am not impressed and I doubt anyone else is.
Quote:
So whatever exists is being experienced
Whatever is known to exist has been experienced. "IS" implies present continuous sense. Episodes of syncope exist. I have experienced one before. I am not experiencing one now.
I am not experiencing American Terrorism . That does not mean that American terrorism does not exist.
Existence or non existence of things IS not based solely on experience. There is reason too, which can help us know of the existence of that which we have not experienced.
Where did you learn English Albert?
Perhaps you have too much knowledge and very little ability to structure that knowledge and gain some understanding?
You sound very confused.
Quote:
99.9999% of what exists as Albert, cannot be even indirectly experienced by Albert
And how do we know that it exists as Albert? How does Albert know it exists as him if he does not experience it?
If you are incapable of providing a sensible answer to the question above, then your statement remains doubtful and invalid.
Quote:
Ergo, Albert's existence (and all things in existence) is necessarily being experienced by something other than what is in existence
Where is this something?
Do we experience this something? If so how?
Does this something experience us? What evidence show that this something exists?
Quote:
Living things are affected by many many things. Inanimate things are affected by relatively less things.
Could be. But we have no reason to believe this until you support this statement.
Rocks can be moved by little boys, gravity, little girls, little hens, little pigs, little snails, big wings, big birds, drunk people etc etc .
Little boys can be moved by ice cream cones, bicycles, cars, video games, pictures, clothes, games etc.
Support your statements please.
Quote:
So when you're unconscious, I'm free to do whatever I want to you?
You are free to do whatever you want to do to me. Whether I am unconscious or Not.
But I might whoop your ass if I dont like what you do to me.
Whether I am unconscious or Not.
Quote:
Don't you realize that virtually all that you are doing at this very moment and every moment of your life, you are doing unconsciously?
Could be, but then you have not demonstrated this, so I do not agree with that statement.
I meet all definitions of consciousness. Therefore I am conscious as I do what I am doing.
Quote:
Yet you claim you don't experience it?
I claim that I Don't experience what?
Fallacy of missing arguments.
Quote:
You're not conscience of breathing or regulating your heartbeat, yet you experience these things.
I am not conscious that I am breathing?
And who are you to decide for me what I am conscious of?
Quote:
Albert:
Judge: Well time's a wasting and lunch is getting cold. Case dismissed!
jaliet: Wait a minute your honour, we'd like to introduce a witness who saw the accused maliciously herding a group of wilderbeasts over the accused as the accused was unconscious...
Judge: Get on with it counsel, my lunch is getting cold.
*thirty minutes later*
Judge: *addressing members of the jury* Have you reached a verdict?
*they respond in the affirmative*
Judge: What say you?
Members of the Jury: On the count of manslaughter, we find the defendant GUILTY.
On the count of first degree murder, we find the defendant GUILTY.
On the counts of misdemeanor, reckless endangerment, grievous bodily harm, Drunk and disorderly, motiveless malignity, felonious conduct and all other crimes possible, we find the defendant GUILTY.
Judge: I hereby sentence you to life imprisonment and hard labour without the possibility of Parole.
Case dismissed.

*the defendant (Albert the self-proclaimed traditional catholic - whatever that means), flails his arms wildly protesting the sentence as he is herded out of the court. The court officer takes one look at the spittle at the corners of Alberts mouth and lands a left hook on Alberts jaw. Alberts lights go out as the court is deserted. His paws hang lifeless as he is dragged sack-like out of the courtroom*
Now how is that for a case?

Sorry for digressing. Back to the matter at hand.
Quote:
But you, who can't even detect that the Bible is a book, would do better to keep silent about the possibility that you can.
Ad hominem.

Albert, argue your case. Please.
I am confident that you can do so using English.
You are either too lazy to do that. Or ...
(dare I say it? Nah, I dare not. I could spoil the fun. And we dont want that now do we?
Nope)

[Edited for additional theatric effects like curdled milk at the corners of Alberts mouth and dim lights for the courtroom]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 03-15-2002, 09:02 AM   #179
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Post

Quote:
jaliet: Why should the existence of Existence necessitate the existence of Being?

Amos: My answer was that if the existence of Existance only necessitates the existence of Being no change will come about but just a replication of the present existing Being will be generated.
An assertion that was not supported.
more
Quote:
...If the existence of Being changes the essence of Existence must change prior to the existence of Being can change.
What is the difference between the existence of being and the essence of existence?
Aren't you simply saying a statement like "If an existing computer changes then the essence of the computers' existence must change prior to the existing computers' change"?
You have not created a clear dichotomy between "existence of being" and "the essence of existence" yet you are using them to make a single statement.
This is a complex question and may be a form of sophistry or just a logical fallacy(failure to elucidate). You need to address the meanings of the two phrases before you can use them to compose a single proposition if you mean to make a point. Otherwise the meaning of your statement remains obscure.
More
Quote:
In the case of involution there will be a decrease and so the essence of Existence for the existence of Being will be less than the existence of Existence we started with.
same as above. The essence of existence and existence of being sound like two completely different phrases and its difficult to derive meaning out of your statements unless you bring out their relatedness.
Confounding us may appear as a smoke-and-mirror tactic on your part. Please be clear
Quote:
If this was not true the Prime Mover would not be in charge of our destiny
You are comitting the fallacy of affirming the consequent. He could still be in charge of our destiny even if your preceeding assertions were not true.
By the way,
Where is the Prime Mover? In Japan?
These questions should indicate to you that you have subverted your efforts: In the process of explaining something, you have introduced a phenomena that doesn't exist as part of your explanation. Thus in a manner of speaking, you have dug a hole to stop another hole.
Furthermore...
You are begging the question. For us to admit to your statement, we must first agree on whether:
1. A prime Mover exists.
2. We have a destiny.
3. The prime Mover is in charge of our destiny.

Until then, you have no valid point or answer as far as Draygombs' question is concerned.

[Edited to correct typos resulting from distraction by mating gazelles and a mosquito bite - ah, the Savannah. Nothing like it to distract a man engaged in serious discourse!]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 03-15-2002, 09:31 AM   #180
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,018
Lightbulb

Dear Draygomb,
Quote:

Why should the existence of Existence necessitate the existence of Being?


A most excellent question: the pivot point to my case, the answer to which I fear must be somewhat intuitive. But I'll attempt to be as logical as I can be by first dutifully taking my medication.

There! I feel all that poetry rinsing out of my brain like dirty socks being rung out. But soft, o're russet mantled hill the rosy fingered dawn doth creep... and even Jaliet seems to be warming up to me. Yeah for drugs!

1) If no thing can be touched directly, only indirectly...
2) If getting indirectly touched is what we call experience...
3) If experience is how we infer our existence and the existence of what touches us...


4) Then existence and experience are synonymous terms for activity, not for anything in a state of being.
5) But the prerequisite of activity is a thing in a state of being.
6) Ergo, something must simply Be upon which activity is predicated.


7) Whatever simply Is (by definition and contrast to all else that merely exists), experiences touch directly, that is, without any means, without time or space or even knowledge.
8) What Is, is what Traditional Catholicism calls the Subsistent Being (ipsum esse subsistens) or Pure Act (actus purus), the theological expression of the Biblical Yahweh (I Am Who Am) God.

(With his meds wearing off, he begins to wax poetic as his audience drifts away...) Look at it this way: Being or God or the state of being that must necessarily precede activity, is analogous to air being the medium whereby sound waves can travel.

For example, in outer space you cannot scream even if you do scream. That's because without air there is no matrix for sound to travel across. Likewise, Being is the medium of exchange and the matrix of existence whereby any and all activity is transacted.

Hey! I'm talking to you! Come back! I'll scream if you don't and there's plenty of air around to enable me to do just that. All right, you asked for it: aaaaahhhhhhhh...

-- Sincerely, Albert the (fumbling with the child proof lids on his medication) Traditional Catholic
Albert Cipriani is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.