Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Argument for the undefinable
    #5378135 -

Logical philosophy does not seem to have faced the fact that "nonsense" terms, so far from being valueless, are essential to every system of thought. It would be quite impossible to construct a philosophy or a science which is a "closed system" rigorously defining every term which it employs. Godel has given us a clear mathematicological proof of the fact that no system can define its own axioms without self-contradiction, and, since Hilbert, mathematics has employed the point as an entirely undefined concept. Just as the knife cuts other things, but not itself, so thought uses tools which define but cannot be defined; logical philosophy itself by no means escapes from this limitation.

For example, when logical philosophy asserts that "true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis," it must recognize that this very statement is meaningless if unverifiable. Similarly, when it insists that the only "realities" are those facts which are elicited in "scientific observation," it must recognize that it cannot, and does not, answer the question "What is a fact?" If we say that "facts" or "things" are the segments of experience symbolized by nouns, we are merely shifting the irreducible element of nonsense in our definition from "fact" to "experience." Some basic nonsense is entirely unavoidable, and the attempt to construct a completely self-defining system of thought is a vicious circle of tautology. Language can hardly dispense with the word "is", and yet the dictionary can only inform us that "what is" is "what exists," and that "what exists" is "what is."

If, then, it must be admitted that even one nonsense, meaningless, or undefined term is necessary to all thought, we have already admitted the metaphysical principle that the basis or ground of all "things" is an indefinable (or infinite) nothing beyond sense - always escaping our comprehension and control. This is the supernatural, in the proper sense of what cannot be "natured" or classified, and the immaterial in the sense of what cannot be measured, metered, or "mattered." In all its fullness, this admission is precisely faith - the recognition that one must ultimately "give in" to a life-source, a Self beyond the ego, which lies beyond the definition of thought and the control of action.

From Become What You Are by Alan Watts


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5378241 -

It's about the bullshit to non-bullshit ratio. It is fantasy to build your house with marshmallow guinea pigs. And pushing for less bullshit doesn't mean you're yearning for a "closed system".


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: Sclorch]
    #5378285 -

Marshmallow guinea pigs! Mmmmmm :drooling: :drooling: :stoned:


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5378322 -

It appears to me that you are referring to the buddhist notion of emptiness and non-inherent existence. IE an objects existence depends on other phenomena.

This link has been useful in my understanding of emptiness
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html

click on emptiness located on the bar to the left of your screen

Edited by Smoker For Peace (03/08/06 05:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: Cherk]
    #5378353 -

Indeed, though not so much dependent arising as much as simply discussing the idea of the underlying No-thingness (if you can even call it that).


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5378691 -

Logical philosophy does not seem to have faced the fact that "nonsense" terms, so far from being valueless, are essential to every system of thought.

If by essential, Alan Watts means that without nonsensical terms, there would be no sensical terms, then I agree. This is no different from saying that black cannot exist without white, for instance.


It would be quite impossible to construct a philosophy or a science which is a "closed system" rigorously defining every term which it employs.

Would you care to elucidate how this is impossible?


Godel has given us a clear mathematicological proof of the fact that no system can define its own axioms without self-contradiction, and, since Hilbert, mathematics has employed the point as an entirely undefined concept

Where is the self-contradiction when I define "existence exists" as underscoring the fact that existence exists?


Just as the knife cuts other things, but not itself, so thought uses tools which define but cannot be defined; logical philosophy itself by no means escapes from this limitation

Au contraire. Take the cognitive tool of logic, for instance. Logic can most certainly be defined: It is the act of conforming one's thought to the Law of Identity. Aka, the art of non-contradictory identification.


For example, when logical philosophy asserts that "true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis," it must recognize that this very statement is meaningless if unverifiable.

So this is the same thing as falsifiability, correct?


Similarly, when it insists that the only "realities" are those facts which are elicited in "scientific observation," it must recognize that it cannot, and does not, answer the question "What is a fact?"

But non-sequitur. As a logically philosophical minded individual, I can answer the question with ease: Facts are successfully formed conclusions about some aspect of reality.


Some basic nonsense is entirely unavoidable,

Basic nonsense is perhaps unavoidable in the respect that nescience will always be unavoidable - much agreed.


If, then, it must be admitted that even one nonsense, meaningless, or undefined term is necessary to all thought, we have already admitted the metaphysical principle that the basis or ground of all "things" is an indefinable (or infinite) nothing beyond sense - always escaping our comprehension and control.

Non-sequitur. Alan Watts shows a refusal or inability to distinguish between the man-made and the metaphysical. A similar fallacy would be to conclude that because our skyscrapers and houses did not have to be where they are now [i.e., they weren't necessitated], nor did our planets and stars have to be where they are now.
Moreover, there is no real justification for claiming that anything is actually indefinable or infinite. If anything were actually "infinite", i.e., "immeasurable", i.e., "indefinable", it would bear no relationship of any kind to the rest of the universe, it would not affect or be affected by anything else in any manner whatever, it would exact no causes and bear no consequences - in short, it would not exist.

How do I know, one may ask? To ask for a proof that existence has a finite content is to ask for a proof that existence has a definite identity. There is no proof. The proposition is axiomatic. Finitude is part of the meaning of existence and identity.





--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5379089 -

Godel has given us a clear mathematicological proof of the fact that no system can define its own axioms without self-contradiction

"Where is the self-contradiction when I define "existence exists" as underscoring the fact that existence exists?"

I'm afraid the phrase "existence exists" isn't mathematical nor part of an axiomatic set. It's a necessary truth; Existence implies existing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5380771 -

If by essential, Alan Watts means that without nonsensical terms, there would be no sensical terms, then I agree. This is no different from saying that black cannot exist without white, for instance.

No, I think he means not simply as in contrast to sensical terms, but as in every system of thought contains terms that are either undefinable or are involved in cyclic reasoning, such as his example of the definition of "what is" being "what exists", and the definition of "what exists" being "what is". And these are nonsense terms since they can only be defined by other terms which are defined as being the first set of terms.

Would you care to elucidate how this is impossible?

Because at some point you would end up defining a term (let's say Term A) in terms of another term (Term B), and then Term B would be defined as Term A (cyclical).

Where is the self-contradiction when I define "existence exists" as underscoring the fact that existence exists?

He's referring to entire thought systems, not just one statement, because one statement isn't inherently self-contradictory, otherwise axioms would serve no rational philosophical purpose other than to confuse people, and that certainly isn't the aim of philosophy.

So this is the same thing as falsifiability, correct?

Not quite. If you're going to assert that "true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis", then that assertion must be itself verifiable. So how do you verify it? How do you set up a hypothesis to test if true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis?

But non-sequitur. As a logically philosophical minded individual, I can answer the question with ease: Facts are successfully formed conclusions about some aspect of reality.

What's a conclusion? A statement of fact deduced using rationality based on scientific observation, perhaps?

Basic nonsense is perhaps unavoidable in the respect that nescience will always be unavoidable - much agreed.

Not nescience, but nonsense as discussed above: terms that are either self-referential or have a cyclical definition (eg "is" = "to be" = "exists" = "is").

Alan Watts shows a refusal or inability to distinguish between the man-made and the metaphysical.

This isn't evident to me from the section you quoted. He asserts that if there is just one term that is nonsense, and it is necessarily a basis from which other thoughts and conclusions arise, then the concept of the indefinable (perhaps the 'ineffable') must be recognized.

If anything were actually "infinite", i.e., "immeasurable", i.e., "indefinable", it would bear no relationship of any kind to the rest of the universe, it would not affect or be affected by anything else in any manner whatever, it would exact no causes and bear no consequences - in short, it would not exist.

The first statement you make, that something infinite would bear no relationship to the rest of the universe, is incorrect because by its very nature, infinity is all encompassing (everything and nothing, if you will). Thus the universe might be said to be one aspect of infinity, but it certainly would not be right to differentiate between 'infinity' and 'the rest of the universe' as they would be of one and the same fabric...infinity.

And on a bit of a side note, I've been meaning to ask you...since you accept the Law of Causality completely, how do you suggest such a cause and effect relationship originated? What was the Original Cause?


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5381091 -

Rather then drain our time [and the readers' time] with endless hair-splitting and speculative disputes over Mr. Watts' writings, I will respond to the meat of your argument with one exception as follows:


This isn't evident to me from the section you quoted. He asserts that if there is just one term that is nonsense, and it is necessarily a basis from which other thoughts and conclusions arise, then the concept of the indefinable (perhaps the 'ineffable') must be recognized.

Mr. Watts writes: "If, then, it must be admitted that even one nonsense, meaningless, or undefined term is necessary to all thought, we have already admitted the metaphysical principle that the basis or ground of all "things" is an indefinable (or infinite) nothing beyond sense.."

This leads me to think he is trying to say that because some epistemological [man-made] non-sense is necessary, that there is therefore metaphysical [nature] non-sense - or whatever. Ergo, my aforementioned assessment.


The first statement you make, that something infinite would bear no relationship to the rest of the universe, is incorrect because by its very nature, infinity is all encompassing (everything and nothing, if you will).

But what are you referring to by "infinity"? If by infinity you are referring to the concept that denotes a very, very large number, quantity or dimension, then okay. But my contention is that the actual is ultimately always finite.
To ask for an existent infinity is to ask for a contradiction in reality. It is to accept that an entity have content and in the next breath declare that whatever its specific content, it is not yet the complete actual entity.


Thus the universe might be said to be one aspect of infinity, but it certainly would not be right to differentiate between 'infinity' and 'the rest of the universe' as they would be of one and the same fabric...infinity.

"Infinity" is a concept, pertaining to a quantitive quality. It is not a metaphysical existent. If under the context of meaning a vastly large quantity, then a specific existent can be attributed with such a quality. Under the context denoting an immeasurability and indefinability, it is ultimately a meaningless concept, except for colloquial hyperboles.


And on a bit of a side note, I've been meaning to ask you...since you accept the Law of Causality completely, how do you suggest such a cause and effect relationship originated? What was the Original Cause?

Implicit in your question is:

Quote:
the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.


-Nathaniel Branden

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/branden.htm


And on a side-note as well.. I've been meaning to ask you: Have you found your fundamental, irreducible axioms as of yet?



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5381652 -

Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Very Taoist: they talk of wu-wei, or something happening of itself. Existence happened of itself.

it did not, at some point in time "spring into being."

So there was no big bang?

There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it.

Thus our universe existed spontaneously: there was no outside force that caused it to exist, it existed of itself.

If nothing existed, there could be no time.

So Nothing existed 'prior to the big bang', which means that there was no beginning nor end, since there was Nothing, which means the concept eternity.

Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

This is the same argument given by Augustine of Hippo: "time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside of time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present." If you define the term "God" in that context as eternity, then what Branden and Augustine of Hippo are stating is that eternity (at least the concept of it) exists outside of time, and that time is "in" eternity, which is also Nothing (void of anything and everything, even the state of being void). So now the very concept of time rests upon the concept of eternity (which is the concept of no-time: lacking a beginning or end)/Nothingness. But since Nothingness is void of even being void, you can't define it without referencing Somethingness. How can you possibly define Nothingness or the lack of existence without speaking of Somethingness or existence? Therefore, Nothingness is indefinable (since to define something is to say what it IS, yet with Nothingness you can ONLY say what it is NOT), yet our very conceptions of time and existence (so the very fundamental idea of logic and rationality: existence exists) depend on this indefinable (or nonsense) term.


So then this takes us back to your criticism that he is trying to say that because some epistemological [man-made] non-sense is necessary, that there is therefore metaphysical [nature] non-sense - or whatever.

The perfect epistomology should perfectly reflect nature (the metaphysical) as used in the context of your criticism. Positing that existence is (metaphysically) all there is, then it follows that the ideal epistomology (our concepts and logic) should reflect that perfectly yes? For logic and epistomology are based on describing existence. But if our concepts and logic (epistomology) are based on accepting non-existence, and non-existence violates our metaphysical principle, then either one must accept the concept of non-existence as being Real and that the concept reflects some aspect (or you would have to say, non-aspect) of Ultimate Reality; or one must admit that this view of epistomology is fundamentally flawed as having to accept the definitions of time and existence in terms of a fictional concept, and it's difficult to get an accurate (non-fictional) epistemological view of existence from a fictional view.

If one accepts the former, then the next question would be "How the hell can Something and Nothing co-'exist' (so to speak)? And this, this is a step in the right direction. If one accepts the latter, then one must seek out the True Reality, which would, in terms of logic, strike me as being the former assertion.

Have you found your fundamental, irreducible axioms as of yet?

Well I have been thinking about it, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that my initial proposition that "Brahman exists" (where Brahman is the absolute infinite) is pretty much the fundamental axiom I follow.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5381845 -

So there was no big bang?

Obviously, there was some sort of incident that occurred which can be denoted as the "Big Bang". But to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of Existence is to not grasp the point that Branden is communicating. We've been through this before: The Big Bang metaphysically cannot spring out of "nothing", only out of existence. For if something caused the Big Bang, then something exists. To be caused presupposes an existence. The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of Identity. An existent with no identity is an existent that doesn't exist.


So Nothing existed 'prior to the big bang', which means that there was no beginning nor end, since there was Nothing, which means the concept eternity.

Incorrect, see above. Nothing does not exist, never has, never will. Correction: Existence existed prior to the big bang.


eternity (at least the concept of it) exists outside of time, and that time is "in" eternity, which is also Nothing (void of anything and everything, even the state of being void).

Eternity is a concept of timelessness - nothing more. Like "Nothing", it is a relational concept.


- since Nothingness is void of even being void, you can't define it without referencing Somethingness.

Yes, in other words - nothingness is just a relational concept. It is useful as a tool of cognition - but it doesn't exist.


Nothingness is indefinable (since to define something is to say what it IS, yet with Nothingness you can ONLY say what it is NOT)

Incorrect. Nothingness is defined in relation to other concepts and to existence. This highlights defines -in a specific respect- what Nothingness is - nothing!


yet our very conceptions of time and existence (so the very fundamental idea of logic and rationality: existence exists) depend on this indefinable (or nonsense) term.

But there is nothing that is truly indefinable - one way or another. In fact, all of our conceptions depend on one thing: existence. To claim that something depends on nothing, is to imply that it is something rather than nothing. This is why we must understand that nothing IS in fact something - and only one thing: a relational concept. Nothing more.


But if our concepts and logic (epistomology) are based on accepting non-existence, and non-existence violates our metaphysical principle, then either one must accept the concept of non-existence as being Real

But stop right there. Non-existence only contradicts metaphysics if one drops the context of what nothingness actually is. You keep insisting that "Nothing" is a metaphysical entity or existent of some kind. You are entirely correct that our epistemology should reflect metaphysics. All the more reason it is unjustified to claim an aspect of our epistemology [relational concepts such as "nothing"] should have primacy over metaphysics.


I will perhaps return more with later, but for now I must depart.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5383781 -

If you're going to assert that "true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis", then that assertion must be itself verifiable. So how do you verify it? How do you set up a hypothesis to test if true meaning is a verifiable hypothesis?

:thumbup:
This is one of the reasons why Logical Empiricism died in the seventies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5384901 -

We both agree that Nothing does not exist. However, we disagree on the implications of that assertion. I tend to believe something along the lines of Ex nihilo omnia fiunt, and I lean towards empiricism and value personal experience, while you seem to believe something along the lines of continental rationalism: that in principle, all knowledge ? including scientific knowledge ? can be gained through the use of reason alone (though perhaps, like Spinoza, you recognize that in practice this isn't possible for human beings except in specific areas such as maths.) (Correct me if I'm wrong).


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: dblaney]
    #5386857 -

, while you seem to believe something along the lines of continental rationalism: that in principle, all knowledge ? including scientific knowledge ? can be gained through the use of reason alone

No, I don't advocate rationalism as you've defined. Reason -in reality- must be integrated with empirical experience. I do, however, recognize that reason is the absolute means of gaining knowledge - there is no other way.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Argument for the undefinable [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5388132 -

Now, Mr. Noodlepudding is taking his word:
If existence exists, nonexistence exists as well, in a dualistic context.
Even if nothingness is dependent on the context, it exists as well as I am very glad, that the nonexistent atomic plant in my garden still stands. But I am quite sad, that my nonexistent girlfriend is visiting me all the time.
In fact, the part of the nonexistent existence (or existence of nonexistence) is much larger than the existing existence part itself.
(Please ignore, if you may want to push this into your nonexistence :wink:)


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,889 12 11/11/11 02:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* ETERNAL LIFE PROVEN TO EXIST BY AFS!!!!
( 1 2 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 3,390 34 07/09/03 10:46 AM
by chunder
* God Cannot Exist
( 1 2 all )		 jim_dewit 5,615 39 08/22/02 06:29 PM
by Xlea321
* Truth in the Ontological Argument or Syntax Games chemkid 1,354 13 12/25/03 10:21 AM
by Anonymous
* aliens don't exist, I have proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 chodamunky 12,651 58 09/26/02 04:53 AM
by In(di)go
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,312 17 01/16/03 11:23 AM
by Axiom420
* Spirit, undefined and eternal gettinjiggywithit 1,172 19 11/05/04 01:06 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 3,488 48 01/30/06 07:55 PM
by blaze2

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,009 topic views. 1 members, 136 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.