Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:37:03 +0000
Jan Burse wrote:
John Jones schrieb:If we take away all objects then we are left with time and space. If we take away time and space then we are left without the framework through which objects can be manifested. In that case, there are no grounds upon which we can declare that something or nothing remains.
Here's another example. The framework of colour is as 'nothing' to the framework of sound. Red is not found in the framework of sound and loud is not found in the framework of colour (barring artistic equivocation).
So, if I live in the framework of sound and the entire framework of sound and its sound-objects disappear, then I am no more entitled to say that because of this disappearance that there is 'nothing', any more than I can say that there is the framework of colour and its colours.
Your framework is only a generator and then a container.
Although it generates all kinds of objects (the potential),
the container (the here and now) can be empty.
No reason to assume that framework disappears when container
is empty. So take your blue (not the red one) pill and
read some of the old greeks, something about actual
and potential.
Bye
I am saying that without sound, we can say that there is nothing or that there is colour. Nothing and colour amount to the same thing as far as sound objects go.
.
- References:
- The negation of 'everything'?
- From: John Jones
- Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: William Elliot
- Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: John Jones
- Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: William Elliot
- Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: John Jones
- Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- From: Jan Burse
- The negation of 'everything'?
- Prev by Date: Re: Specifying Sets
- Next by Date: Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- Previous by thread: Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- Next by thread: Re: The negation of 'everything'?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|