Hey Dan,
> > RICK:
> > Very tricky indeed Dan.... "value(Quality) is (equals) real
(reality)".....
> > You have equivocated between "real" and "reality". Let me explain...
When I
> > ask if Santa Claus is real I am not asking if Santa Claus = Reality.
> > Rather, I am asking whether Santa Claus is actually a part of reality.
>
DAN:
> Let's examine your Santa question for a minute. Santa belongs to a very
> specific part of reality and yet if one really believes in Santa that
> specific reality is all there is, for that individual and any others who
> also believe in Santa.
RICK:
Is a tree a forest??? The forest does NOT = a single tree. The forest =
the sum total of all trees.
Is a real thing Reality? Reality does NOT = a single real thing. Reality =
the sum total of all real things.
Do we disagree on this?
DAN:
So when we assert to ourselves that something is
> real we are not only asserting the realness of the object in question
> but the realness of our reality in its entirety.
RICK:
I really had to take this one apart... try it like this...
"So when we assert to ourselves that [something we think we perceive] is [a
PART of reality] we are not only asserting [the object in question is a PART
of reality] but [also asserting] that [our respective perception of] reality
in its entirety [is also a PART of reality].
Is this an accurate claification?
If so, then I don't object, I agree. But it doesn't refute the notion that
our respective perceptions of reality are merely parts of whole of
reality... they are just more trees in the forest.
It's all Good,
Rick
It's all Good,
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST