|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 12:29:52 GMT -5
"The whole" Omnia means "everything," or "all things," btw. You have rephrased it. You haven't defined it. Noun whole (plural wholes) 1.Something complete, without any parts missing. 2.An entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 12:44:08 GMT -5
You have rephrased it. You haven't defined it. Noun whole (plural wholes) 1.Something complete, without any parts missing. 2.An entirety. You have rephrased it. You haven't defined it. Are squared circles and invisible pink unicorns part of your 'whole'? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 12:52:00 GMT -5
Noun whole (plural wholes) 1.Something complete, without any parts missing. 2.An entirety. You have rephrased it. You haven't defined it. Are squared circles and invisible pink unicorns part of your 'whole'? Ah, jeez, here we go, again.  Sometimes, you remind me of the proverbial person who follows people around simply disagreeing with everything they say, just to drive them batsh!t. Have you ever seen a squared circle, or an invisible pink unicorn? If not, then, it's not likely to be part of the 'whole'. I use the word 'whole' here for various reasons regarding the Latin. As you may or may not know, there is simply no other way to say "All just is" in Latin, without using totus, which means 'whole'. And if you think it's 'wrong' to rephrase, then sue me. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 12:59:42 GMT -5
You have rephrased it. You haven't defined it. Are squared circles and invisible pink unicorns part of your 'whole'? Ah, jeez, here we go, again. Sometimes, you remind me of the proverbial person who follows people around simply disagreeing with everything they say, just to drive them batsh!t. Have you ever seen a squared circle, or an invisible pink unicorn? If not, then, it's not likely to be part of the 'whole'. I use the word 'whole' here for various reasons regarding the Latin. As you may or may not know, there is simply no other way to say "All just is" in Latin, without using totus, which means 'whole'. And if you think it's 'wrong' to rephrase, then sue me. Jeez, relax. 'All', 'whole' etc are empty words until they are defined. Andrew for example thinks that squared circles are part of existence. Just curious how you would define 'all', that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 13:09:54 GMT -5
Andrew for example thinks that squared circles are part of existence.  Wouldn't that just be a square? I'm not surprised by this, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 14:23:51 GMT -5
Andrew for example thinks that squared circles are part of existence. Wouldn't that just be a square? No. What it refers to is a shape that is a circle and a square at the same time. A contradiction to most people, but some think it's possible. I find that one can learn a lot about people if you have them define what they mean by 'all there is'. For example is the couch behind you, that you don't see right now, part of 'what is'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 14:25:28 GMT -5
Ah, jeez, here we go, again. Sometimes, you remind me of the proverbial person who follows people around simply disagreeing with everything they say, just to drive them batsh!t. Have you ever seen a squared circle, or an invisible pink unicorn? If not, then, it's not likely to be part of the 'whole'. I use the word 'whole' here for various reasons regarding the Latin. As you may or may not know, there is simply no other way to say "All just is" in Latin, without using totus, which means 'whole'. And if you think it's 'wrong' to rephrase, then sue me. Jeez, relax. 'All', 'whole' etc are empty words until they are defined. Andrew for example thinks that squared circles are part of existence. Just curious how you would define 'all', that's all. Just to be clear, what I said is that if it can be imagined, then it exists. And thats what Rob Schneider reckons too, so it must be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 14:45:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't that just be a square? No. What it refers to is a shape that is a circle and a square at the same time. A contradiction to most people, but some think it's possible. I find that one can learn a lot about people if you have them define what they mean by 'all there is'. For example is the couch behind you, that you don't see right now, part of 'what is'? I don't define 'what is' as anything that can be perceived with the senses. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 14:47:36 GMT -5
Jeez, relax. 'All', 'whole' etc are empty words until they are defined. Andrew for example thinks that squared circles are part of existence. Just curious how you would define 'all', that's all. Just to be clear, what I said is that if it can be imagined, then it exists. And thats what Rob Schneider reckons too, so it must be right. Yeah, Andrew, you lose me completely on that one. But, that's okay. At least I don't feel alone in having a hair-brained idea, once in a while. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 14:53:31 GMT -5
No. What it refers to is a shape that is a circle and a square at the same time. A contradiction to most people, but some think it's possible. I find that one can learn a lot about people if you have them define what they mean by 'all there is'. For example is the couch behind you, that you don't see right now, part of 'what is'? I don't define 'what is' as anything that can be perceived with the senses. Aha. So, in other words, 'what is' is imagined? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 15:20:17 GMT -5
I don't define 'what is' as anything that can be perceived with the senses. Aha. So, in other words, 'what is' is imagined? No, sorry, I think you're imagining that such is what I'm saying there. By 'what is', I'm really referring to that which is not, if that makes any sense. 'What is' is ineffable, indescribable, indefinable. It's the redness of the color red, for lack of a better descriptive. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 15:29:59 GMT -5
Aha. So, in other words, 'what is' is imagined? No, sorry, I think you're imagining that such is what I'm saying there. By 'what is', I'm really referring to that which is not, if that makes any sense. 'What is' is ineffable, indescribable, indefinable. It's the redness of the color red, for lack of a better descriptive. How can 'what is' be 'that which is not'? If you see 'redness' right here and now, then in what sense is the 'redness' non-existent? If you turn your head around and see no more 'redness', does 'redness' still exist somehow? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 15:43:37 GMT -5
Just to be clear, what I said is that if it can be imagined, then it exists. And thats what Rob Schneider reckons too, so it must be right. Yeah, Andrew, you lose me completely on that one. But, that's okay. At least I don't feel alone in having a hair-brained idea, once in a while. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 15:46:34 GMT -5
No, sorry, I think you're imagining that such is what I'm saying there. By 'what is', I'm really referring to that which is not, if that makes any sense. 'What is' is ineffable, indescribable, indefinable. It's the redness of the color red, for lack of a better descriptive. How can 'what is' be 'that which is not'? That's the ineffable part. Redness is non-existent as "redness", or what one thinks as "redness". If you're color blind, red might actually look like brown, but that particularly shade of brown would be "redness" to you. Meanwhile, there's still the quality of redness, which remains real redness. Sure. Why not? That I've not experienced something doesn't necessarily mean that the 'isness' of that something doesn't exist. Redness will still exist, whether I see it, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 16:09:41 GMT -5
How can 'what is' be 'that which is not'? That's the ineffable part. Redness is non-existent as "redness", or what one thinks as "redness". If you're color blind, red might actually look like brown, but that particularly shade of brown would be "redness" to you. Meanwhile, there's still the quality of redness, which remains real redness. Sure. Why not? That I've not experienced something doesn't necessarily mean that the 'isness' of that something doesn't exist. Redness will still exist, whether I see it, or not. Some animals see in very different ways to humans. It begs the question....'who is seeing the correct way?' So I would say that its not even that 'redness' exists, its more just that 'somethingness' exists and this 'somethingness' is diverse and contrasting in nature. But how this 'somethingness' is perceived is subjective. Some see and experience 'redness' whereas some see and experience 'brownness' . |
|
Wouldn't that just be a square?