Re: CHAT Cartesian parataxis (was: ANNOUNCE: First longer sentence in S7)

Hi!

Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
>...
> as the ego is able to define it. And the ego can. And then - and
> that's the bit I disagree with - he goes on arguing that actual
> existence is "more perfect" than virtual existence, and thus that his
> idea of a perfect being needed, by definition, to exist itself, and
> outside of his own imagination. Hence, "God" exists).
Ok.  In contrast of inferring existence from being, this is theory
then.  I would not draw conclusions from theory and would not think
anything like existence can be proven for anything/one than yourself.
It is quite an interesting and, for me, exhaustive finding to define
existence by thinking.  But anything beyond that is theory.

I think for the life *here*, some things don't matter: a) is this the
real being or is it virtual: you won't find out anyway (at least it is
statistically unbelievably unlikely), it does not make any difference
*here* (philosophically it does, of course, but that's the fun part,
not the provable part, not the relevant part *here*), b) is there
another more perfect being: that's religion.  Everyone can decide for
themself.  As long as no wars are started *here*. :-)

Back to thinking/being: I find it ok to think that while I sleep, I am
not, because while sleeping deeply, I don't think. :-)

> I personally don't feel that actual existence is any better than
> non-existence outside my own thoughts.
I don't understand that sentence.

**Henrik

Reply