However this is to misunderstand the logical role played by "atoms and void". Atoms and void are not fundamentally two different things - they are one substance. — Agustino

The problem the atomists set out to solve was that posed by Parmenides - how 'that which is', which was never changing, could account for the realm of multiplicity and change.

Ancient sources describe atomism as one of a number of attempts by early Greek natural philosophers to respond to the challenge offered by Parmenides. Despite occasional challenges (Osborne 2004), this is how its motivation is generally interpreted by scholars today. Parmenides had argued that it is impossible for there to be change without something coming from nothing. Since the idea that something could come from nothing was generally agreed to be impossible, Parmenides argued that change is merely illusory. In response, Leucippus and Democritus, along with other Presocratic pluralists such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, developed systems that made change possible by showing that it does not require that something should come to be from nothing. These responses to Parmenides suppose that there are multiple unchanging material principles, which persist and merely rearrange themselves to form the changing world of appearances. — SEP

The atomist doctrine was, of course, set in prose-poem by Lucretius, which is the form that had considerable impact on the French philosophers of the Enlightenment - 'I see nothing but bodies in motion'.

So I think in any form of atomism, 'the void' is precisely not substance, but absence - the void. Whereas 'the atom' is the fundamental unit of everything; as I said, it's a simple binary, where atom = 1, void = 0. (Notice how materialism has now generally been re-branded as 'physicalism' because physics itself has undermined atomism. But physicalism or materialism are monistic doctrines, everything comes from matter and returns to it.)

You're busy quarrelling with the content of metaphysics (but guess what, there is no content, because it's strictly logical) — Agustino

It's not only logical. Materialism is a metaphysical stance, which has many practical consequences, not least what is considered a valid idea. Modern science will go to amazing lengths to avoid certain kinds of ideas; I often quote a speech by Hawkings, where he resists the theory that the Universe might have had a beginning, simply because it seems to invoke a 'first cause' or 'hand of God'. Much of the speculative metaphysics about 'multiverses' is due to avoiding the 'naturalness' or 'fine-tuning' problem.

If I am a liberal, and I read "The Meet the Real Dragon", the chapter "Not to do Wrong", and I read all the precepts I will go on thinking that according to Buddhism there's nothing wrong with casual sex or sex between two men, and so forth. Now do you agree with that statement or not? — Agustino

I never saw that in that book, but then I wasn't looking for it. In my experience, most Western Buddhists who have grown up since the sixties tend to assume a pretty liberalistic attitude. The old timers didn't. It is one of the things that irks me about popular Buddhism in the west. I think traditional Buddhism was silent on many such questions because it was assumed (not always correctly) that Buddhists would not be engaged in such activities. That absence of discussion is interpreted as liberalism in my view, but it's a hot-button topic and one that I avoid.

For example, when you say that you'll leave the forums and you are reminded not to talk with strangers, etc. you're obviously angry. — Agustino

I think 'annoyed' is more like it. I often feel like I'm arguing at cross-purposes. (My wife also gets annoyed with me because she thinks forums are basically a waste of time). But also I wonder how much of my own motivation is sounding off and simply telling others what I think. I hope not, but I need to be mindful of that.

Personally I think you're selling yourself far too short — Agustino

Kind of you to say so. I started that blog to express my thoughts on these subjects, a couple of years before discovering forums. If I was trying to get an audience, I would take a different tack now. I might still do that. Trying to work out a way to migrate all the content off there.

The problem the atomists set out to solve was that posed by Parmenides - how 'that which is', which was never changing, could account for the realm of multiplicity and change.

"Ancient sources describe atomism as one of a number of attempts by early Greek natural philosophers to respond to the challenge offered by Parmenides. Despite occasional challenges (Osborne 2004), this is how its motivation is generally interpreted by scholars today. Parmenides had argued that it is impossible for there to be change without something coming from nothing. Since the idea that something could come from nothing was generally agreed to be impossible, Parmenides argued that change is merely illusory. In response, Leucippus and Democritus, along with other Presocratic pluralists such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, developed systems that made change possible by showing that it does not require that something should come to be from nothing. These responses to Parmenides suppose that there are multiple unchanging material principles, which persist and merely rearrange themselves to form the changing world of appearances"
— SEP

The atomist doctrine was, of course, set in prose-poem by Lucretius, which is the form that had considerable impact on the French philosophers of the Enlightenment - 'I see nothing but bodies in motion'. — Wayfarer

No doubt that historically this was the case - they were back in those days still confusing physics and metaphysics and the boundary wasn't very clear, hence their notions became confused, having both a physical sense, and a metaphysical one.

So I think in any form of atomism, 'the void' is precisely not substance, but absence - the void. Whereas 'the atom' is the fundamental unit of everything; as I said, it's a simple binary, where atom = 1, void = 0. (Notice how materialism has now generally been re-branded as 'physicalism' because physics itself has undermined atomism. But physicalism or materialism are monistic doctrines, everything comes from matter and returns to it.) — Wayfarer

The reason why I think this is the wrong understanding is because you're not attending the definition of substance given by Spinoza which I was using:

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself — Agustino

So the void is also in itself and conceived through itself. The notion of atom for example does not entail the notion of void. So clearly substance in Epicureanism is "atoms and void" - and necessarily so. The conceptual division in substance between atoms and void becomes helpful to explain how movement (change) is possible - how the modes of substance are possible. This does indeed form a coherent metaphysics, precisely because it fulfils the same function that substance does in Spinoza. So my quarrel isn't with your binary interpretation of the metaphysics (with which I agree, but that happens at a lower level than what I'm trying to tell you). My point is that there is something more important than that - namely this logical function that "atoms and void" performs.

It's not only logical. Materialism is a metaphysical stance, which has many practical consequences, not least what is considered a valid idea. Modern science will go to amazing lengths to avoid certain kinds of ideas; I often quote a speech by Hawkings, where he resists the theory that the Universe might have had a beginning, simply because it seems to invoke a 'first cause' or 'hand of God'. Much of the speculative metaphysics about 'multiverses' is due to avoiding the naturaleness or fine-tuning problem. — Wayfarer

But certainly you realise that people like Hawkings are not philosophers, and their understanding of philosophy isn't very good. There is a first cause in materialism - it's the substance "atoms and void". So he can protest all he likes, Hawkings still has an eternal first cause, indeed - a first cause is inescapable - even if you call it the multiverse ;)

most Western Buddhists who have grown up since the sixties tend to assume a pretty liberalistic attitude — Wayfarer

Yes exactly my observation. I did however know a non-Western Buddhist (she happened to be my girlfriend) who wasn't liberalistic in attitude (neither she nor her family were for that matter).

That absence of discussion is interpreted as liberalism in my view, but it's a hot-button topic and one that I avoid. — Wayfarer

Why do you think it's useful to avoid hot-button topics? They are often the elephants in the room, precisely because they are hot buttons it becomes important to address them, at least in my view.

I think 'annoyed' is more like it. I often feel like I'm arguing at cross-purposes. (My wife also gets annoyed with me because she thinks forums are basically a waste of time). But also I wonder if own motivation is sounding off and simply telling others what I think. I hope not, but I need to be mindful of that. — Wayfarer

Okay, I see, I understand! I don't think you're just sounding off, I think you're trying to help others, but as I said I feel many times you're holding back from it for some reason - like you're not doing it with your whole being if you get what I mean - your engagement isn't total when you're doing it, as if you were somehow conflicted about it.

Kind of you to say so. I started that blog to express my thoughts on these subjects, a couple of years before discovering forums. If I was trying to get an audience, I would take a different tack now. I might to that. — Wayfarer

Yeah I mean you've built so much content there over the years, I've looked through awhile ago. It's a pity not to do anything with it...

I understand! I don't think you're just sounding off, I think you're trying to help others, but as I said I feel many times you're holding back from it for some reason - like you're not doing it with your whole being if you get what I mean - your engagement isn't total when you're doing it, as if you were somehow conflicted about it. — Agustino

Thanks, I appreciate that. I will think that over.

So how is what the acosmist saying different than what, for example, Kant says about the 'in itself'. The noumenal signifies what things are in themselves, which might be paraphrased (although Kant would not use this kind of language) as what is real in itself.

If you want to say that substance has a Real (ontological) status that is more than merely its use for our understanding, then why would that not be the same as to say that the conditions of our understanding and experience are transcendent (or transcendental in Kant's sense of 'beyond the empirical) to our experience and understanding? — John

The acosmist doesn't confuse self for the empirical. It doesn't need to be empirical to be "determinable." As an infinite, it's is intelligible, rather than being some mystery we can never access because we don't have observation of it.

Under Kant's reasoning, the self is still understood as empirical. We (supposedly) can't say anything about it because it doesn't appear in our experiences of the world. For the acosmist, the point is the thing-in-itself not transcendent to our understanding at all. It's intelligible and Real. There's genuinely more to knowledge and understanding than the empirical. The infinite is not drawn in conflict to the finite world--i.e. unintelligible, beyond reason, a "mystery"-- but rather given with it, with meaning and significance.

Infinites are of the world. They are necessarily and so true at any point of the world, despite the infinite never being any state of the world. Logic means and matters in the world. To place the infinite in utter disconnection to the world, as the transcendent does, is to ignore what is significant about logic. It is to put unintelligibility (e.g. "mystery," "knowledge is impossible." "you can't know anything unless you observe it in the world" ) in place of intelligibility (logic).

As an infinite, it's is intelligible, rather than being some mystery we can never access because we don't have observation of it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not that we don't have observation for it that makes it difficult to become aware of it. It's precisely that the infinite inheres within the finite at all points that makes it difficult to become aware of - the fish isn't aware of the water in which he moves and has his being. So it's difficult to become aware of it, and make it intelligible (for many people), precisely because it is everywhere and nowhere.

In the minds of the people in question, it does. It's so difficult because people expect (and sometimes demand) knowledge empirical. Just as John has done, they will demand to know what the infinite is, in the world, as if it depended on being some observed states of the world. People find it difficult to be aware of the infinite because they are already using metaphysic that holds the finite is all there is to know. If it's not empirical, they think it is unintelligible.

In the minds of the people in question, it does. It's so difficult because people expect (and sometimes demand) it's empirical. Just as John has done, they will demand to know what the infinite is, in the world, as if it depended on being some observed states of the world. People find it difficult to be aware of the infinite because they are already using metaphysic that holds the finite is all there is to know. If it's not empirical, they claim it is unintelligible. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well this is why I'm not a mystic - I cannot fathom nor comprehend why people search for "the beatific vision" or any such experience - it's still an experience, what more can it be? And like all other experiences, it too will end. So what's the point of searching for it? Why are they even searching so desperately for it? Just focusing on "regular life" seems much better to me.

I would say you get caught trying to save people from "materialism." Your understanding of "help" too often reduces to fighting a spectre of materialism. At a certain point, you start crusading against this image of materialism, almost like you think turning people to the transcendent all solve all of their problems. Your discussions tend to turn more unpleasant when someone who doesn't fit this narrative comes along.

Fair comment. But from my perspective what I'm describing as 'materialism' is a quasi-religion in our technological culture, and I think most of us are embedded in it, without recognising it for what it is. ( And it seems to me the intelligibility of your posts has improved. I used to say that a lot of what you wrote didn't make sense, and at the time I think it was true. X-) )

I cannot fathom nor comprehend why people search for "the beatific vision" or any such experience - it's still an experience, what more can it be? And like all other experiences, it too will end. — Agustino

Look at the encyclopedia entries on the 'beatific vision'. Such states are held to be more than simply experiences - they're transformative or even redemptive. The Stations of the Cross, the Bhumis of Mahayana Buddhism. (There's also distinction to be made between 'experiences' and 'realization' which is not often recognised.)

But the accounts of such states are cross-cultural - found in many different times and places.

And, not everyone who has such experience has sought for them - they happen unbidden, spontaneously and sometimes completely uninvited (like the book published by a leftie commentator a couple of years back about her 'encounter with a wild God.)

If it's 'determinable' you should be able to say something about it in terms that are not merely allusive or poetic. You're very wrong in thinking that I am demanding empirical knowledge of the infinite. I was never asking for that, I have been asking you to say something coherent about substance which amounts to more than just poetry or allusion, or logical definition.

If you can't do that, do you nonetheless want to claim that we are committed to believing in the Reality of substance in some extra way beyond our confidence in its use as a logical tool for understanding our everyday experience? If you do want to say this, then please explain why. If you don't want to say that then what do you suppose we are arguing about?

This thread has not at all been about animals fearing death for quite some time. :s

Ya just now realized that? >:O

Nah, I just now commented on it. :)

It shows bad faith to be always misrepresenting those whose questions you apparently cannot answer adequately. I haven't asked for anything like you are saying. What I am asking for is set out in my other response to you, so I won't bother repeating it here. Basically, I just want to see a cogent account of what you are actually saying about the infinite, or substance, or being or the self or whatever you wish to call it.

Under Kant's reasoning, the self is still understood as empirical. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is incorrect for a start. Kant allows that there are empirical (finite) selves and transcendental (infinite) selves. This is so for the self just as it is for everything else, that has an empirical (for us) dimension and a transcendental (in itself) dimension. It's bad enough that you misrepresent me constantly; there is no excuse for misrepresenting Kant.

To place the infinite in utter disconnection to the world, as the transcendent does, is to ignore what is significant about logic. It is to put unintelligibility (e.g. "mystery," "knowledge is impossible." "you can't know anything unless you observe it in the world" ) in place of intelligibility (logic). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The world is in itself infinite: and I have never denied it. The infinite nature of the world, however, can only be determined by us, if it can be determined by us at all, in terms of finite models. Beyond that it can be intuited, alluded to poetically, visually, musically or mystically. You apparently don't understand that poetic, religious or mystic language is not the propositional language of the empirical; you seem to be constantly attacking such discourses, as though they somehow fail to be what you falsely believe they purport to be, or fail to achieve what you falsely think they set out to do.

It annoys me when I am being misrepresented as thinking or being this or that, while what I am actually speaking about and the questions I am asking are being ignored or avoided. Sometimes I get annoyed enough to make the mistake of honestly revealing what I really think about the philosophical understanding of those who constantly misread and misrepresent me. I am always ready to be instructed by someone who I believe genuinely understands something better than I do, however. But superior understanding needs to be clearly and patiently demonstrated; it is not enough to merely assert it. When I see others just making assertion after assertion, and changing the subject when it suits them to evade the difficult questions and issues, it doesn't cause me to have much faith in, or respect for, their philosophical understanding. If me being upfront about this makes me unpopular, then so be it; I am not going to pretend to think what I don't think just to save others' precious egos.

If we disagree with one another, and if we are both of good faith, intellectual honesty, and charitable disposition, then we should be able to come to recognize precisely where we disagree and respect each other's standpoints despite disagreeing with them. Every position comes with its own set of presuppositions that must be taken on faith; what is important is that one reasons coherently and consistently from one's presuppositions.

To be honest, sometimes I wonder whether participating on these forums is not a complete waste of time. It's helped my typing skills at least, I guess.

I agree with everything you have said over the last few pages, but my agreement is not evident because I am not writing it and posting it. These boards are by their nature highlighting the disagreement or conflict between posters and the agreement and camaraderie that would be present in a group present in person, is missing.

So please continue posting, it is not only good exercise for your typing hand, but I expect there are a bunch of posters who enjoy and gain something from it.

I suspect that Willow is substituting the word "infinite" for "transcendent" and claiming a deeper understanding. An understanding which is already present under the label of the transcendent.

It's a contradiction in terms. That which is present in the world is, by definition, not transcendent. Unknown processes can't even allow this because that is just some action of the world we don't know. When is logic applied, any "transcendent" force or being merely becomes another worldly actor-- the "supernatural" is shown to be incoherent. The beings of another realm are just part of nature we don't know about. They are worldly with worldly consequences, rather than metaphysical.

Agreed, but you are using "infinite" instead of transcendent and saying the same thing under another guise.

When I use "transcendent", I am referring to what you are referrring to when you say infinite.

For me the transcendent is present in the world and a part of nature, which we do not see. There is no supernatural, because what we label the supernatural, if present, is perfectly natural.

How "might" it be somewhere? The same way the sun "might" not rise tomorrow? :-} Don't you see that you can't even conceive how it "might" be somewhere? If you can't even conceive it, what grounds do you have for claiming it "might" be that way?!

If it is a necessary being and is somewhere, then it can't be denied. You are denying it by stating that it is nowhere.

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

No I don't, I am only saying we can't in our ignorance rule out that it is somewhere, even if the logic dictates that it is nowhere.

just as you need reasons to think that the sun "might" not rise tomorrow. You can't doubt in the absence of reasons to ground your doubt in. What reasons do you have for thinking this? Where could it be? You don't know. And the fact that it "might" be different is not a reason. You need positive reasons. To think that the sun will not rise tomorrow you need reasons for this. You have some reasons, however weak, for thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow (it has always been the case, you understand the laws of physics, etc) but you have utterly no reason at all to think or even conceive that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Thus you cannot suspend judgement - if you are to be rational you MUST believe it will rise tomorrow.

As I have already explained, we are in a position of ignorance, as limited intellectual beings. This being the case we should be aware of what we can't assert about nature and allow nature to be illogical, or irrational in our (blinkered) eyes, from our limited perspective.

I've provided you with reasons why it can't be anywhere - in fact you're saying it is "out there" - where the fuck is out there? If substance is all there is, where the hell is "out there"? As if substance was "out there" and not also "in here".... as if you could look at it from outside of it...

Where is it, it is here and now. Touch the end of your nose, it is there, deny its presence and it is itself asserting that denial, because it is you, your body, your thoughts, your being. You are it, if you are somewhere, so then is this substance.

There is no possibility of more than one substance. There have been reasons provided for why this isn't the case. Positive reasons. You have no reason to justify why you think this isn't the case. As you yourself have admitted you can't find fault with the argument. You say "Oh it might be otherwise"? So? That's not a reason. Until you come up with a reason - you can't protest against it. And if you can't come up with a reason, then you have to accept it, because I've provided you with positive reasons for accepting it, so you can't just suspend judgement and still be rational. If in the presence of reasons for holding a certain belief you still refuse to hold it, without having any reason for holding the opposite (and "it might be otherwise" isn't such a reason), then you're irrational.

Im not holding anything, I am pointing out that the assertion, there is only one substance cannot be supported in our ignorance. Even if the logic can achieve it, that might just be a peculiarity of logic(like infinity), rather than some appropriate representation of something in nature.

There is no possibility that this is the case. If God is "transcendent", then automatically you have imagined another "bigger" substance which includes the transcendent God and this world in it. (I'm sorry that I have to so brutalise Spinoza's system but it seems you don't want to understand it otherwise, and these metaphors are useful). So you're only under the illusion that God is transcendent, even in that scenario. You're not actually conceiving a situation in which God is transcendent, because to conceive it, then you need to conceive this world, and an outside of this world. But what is that which contains both this world and the outside if not substance (the whole of reality)? And if it is so, then with reference to substance there is still no transcendence, but only immanence.

No that is incorrect, I have a large and extensive "mystical" philosophy which dispels this view and considers the transcendent in detail in many circumstances and from many perspectives.

For example, I consider that "the world" is a construct in eternity, in which through subtle processes, the so called "substance" of a certain kind is brought forth in concrete form and sustained in the semblance of a physical world, allowing a particular facet of being to be manifest.

Also, I have a vocabulary for conceptualising transcendent beings and worlds. Surely you have read this in the bible, it is there for those that can perceive it.

If it is a necessary being and is somewhere — Punshhh

It isn't somewhere. Somewhere is a distinction from somewhere else.

You are denying it by stating that it is nowhere. — Punshhh

What's the difference between something being nowhere and something being everywhere?

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

No I don't — Punshhh

If you don't need reasons to hold a certain position, then you are irrational, end of story, and therefore there's no use arguing with you.

Where is it, it is here and now. Touch the end of your nose, it is there, deny its presence and it is itself asserting that denial, because it is you, your body, your thoughts, your being. You are it, if you are somewhere, so then is this substance. — Punshhh

:-} "here and now" is a temporal distinction and is no different than the previous spatial distinctions you were making. Indeed, it is only from your ignorance and limited perspective that you think the present is any more real (and therefore anymore substance) than the past or future.

I am pointing out that the assertion, there is only one substance cannot be supported in our ignorance — Punshhh

So this isn't "holding" something?

No that is incorrect, I have a large and extensive "mystical" philosophy which dispels this view and considers the transcendent in detail in many circumstances and from many perspectives. — Punshhh

:s I suppose "mystical" is codename for irrational. You and John both retreat in mysticism (irrationalism) as you have no other means of supporting your views.

the so called "substance" of a certain kind is brought forth — Punshhh

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself — Agustino

So let us see... what is in itself and is conceived through itself is brought forth - that surely makes a lot of sense (N)

Surely you have read this in the bible, it is there for those that can perceive it. — Punshhh

No I haven't read about transcendence in the Bible - I've read about a God who interacts with mankind, and therefore acts in the world.

Look at the encyclopedia entries on the 'beatific vision'. Such states are held to be more than simply experiences - they're transformative or even redemptive. — Wayfarer

How can they be anymore transformative than other potential experiences in the world? All experiences, are, to a certain degree, transformative. Falling in love is equally transformative - is that a mystical experience?

How can they be anymore transformative than other potential experiences in the world? — Agustino

Because they're not of the world? Well unless, of course, you're materialist, in which case they're simply delusional or psychotic. You tell me.

Because they're not of the world? Well unless, of course, you're materialist, in which case they're simply delusional or psychotic. You tell me. — Wayfarer

It seems that you believe that one either thinks they are not of the world, and hence can be transformative, or they are of the world, and can't be transformative, but are delusions and psychotic episodes. Can I not think that they are of the world and are transformative? What's wrong with that?

If I am a materialist, I don't have to reject what obviously is the case - that they are precious and transformative. Only some dumb materialists make such a rejection, as if such experiences being properties of matter thus makes them anymore less real...

You're making zero sense, agostino. Thanks for reminding me of the soundness of my decision the other day to stop wasting time on forums.

:s , well good luck with that Wayfarer! (Y)

It isn't somewhere. Somewhere is a distinction from somewhere else.

What's the difference between something being nowhere and something being everywhere?

Oh, so by nowhere, you are actually saying it's everywhere?
We can't make this distinction either, it might be useful for a logical conceptual framework, but is better to consider it neither here nor there. It is your statement about what it is that I am disagreeing with. As I have said, in our ignorance we can't assert that it is nowhere.

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

If you don't need reasons to hold a certain position, then you are irrational, end of story, and therefore there's no use arguing with you.

It is a position of an acceptance of what we can't say, it is apophatic. anyway for the sake of argument, I will say there is a difference between nowhere and everywhere. If something is nowhere, it doesn't exist(perform a function), if everywhere, it can perform its function.

:-} "here and now" is a temporal distinction and is no different than the previous spatial distinctions you were making. Indeed, it is only from your ignorance and limited perspective that you think the present is any more real (and therefore anymore substance) than the past or future.

Think deeper, here and now can mean much more than that. I am well versed in working from the conceptual position of no extension of space or time. Remove this extension and it is still here and now.

So this isn't "holding" something?

As I said above it is not a positive position, it is more an awareness of our limits in making certain assertions. I am happy to furnish you with any examples of this if required.

:s I suppose "mystical" is codename for irrational. You and John both retreat in mysticism (irrationalism) as you have no other means of supporting your views.

The mysticism I refer to is equally as rational as philosophy. Are you reading a book by the cover?

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself
— Agustino

yes, I know, but this might merely be a naive interpretation of its natural state. It stops further exploration, like a barrier.

So let us see... what is in itself and is conceived through itself is brought forth - that surely makes a lot of sense (N)

It doesn't necessarily present as rational, or logical. Remember I pointed out, that I was referring to a different kind of language, developed to address the transcendent. I expected you to be aware of this, it is used in theology as far as I can see.

No I haven't read about transcendence in the Bible - I've read about a God who interacts with mankind, and therefore acts in the world.

I am not a scholar, so can't easily quote the bible, but am aware that it is steeped in words specifically referring to transcendent, or eternal realities. Take Jesus for example, apparently he said "I and my father are one", does this not refer to transcendence? Or what about messages conveyed in Ezekiel, or Revelation?

Sometimes I get annoyed enough to make the mistake of honestly revealing what I really think about the philosophical understanding of those who constantly misread and misrepresent me. — John

Revealing it certainly isn't a mistake, it's the thinking it that's the problem, if you still haven't realised yet:

"By doing this you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember or excrement in his hand and so first burns himself or makes himself stink"

What use not throwing the burning coal if you have already picked it up? >:O Despite your claimed spirituality and mysticism you seem to be nothing but a selfish egomaniac John. I haven't told you that you should be ashamed of yourself for nothing. A man who feels the need to think how superior he is to another certainly is as far as he could get from the spiritual. It seems all your vain philosophy has done little to cure you of this.

We can't make this distinction either, it might be useful for a logical conceptual framework, but is better to consider it neither here nor there — Punshhh

Based on what grounds?

As I have said, in our ignorance we can't assert that it is nowhere. — Punshhh

What ignorance are you talking about? To know the ignorance is already to transcend it.

If something is nowhere, it doesn't exist(perform a function), if everywhere, it can perform its function. — Punshhh

This seems like an empty distinction to me.

Remove this extension and it is still here and now. — Punshhh

In the sense of the way you experience here and now? No.

As I said above it is not a positive position, it is more an awareness of our limits in making certain assertions. — Punshhh

But to know your limits is already to - to a certain degree - be beyond them.

The mysticism I refer to is equally as rational as philosophy — Punshhh

Prove it.

yes, I know, but this might merely be a naive interpretation of its natural state. It stops further exploration, like a barrier. — Punshhh

Propose an alternative definition then which accounts for all that substance accounts for and improves on it.

I am not a scholar, so can't easily quote the bible, but am aware that it is steeped in words specifically referring to transcendent, or eternal realities. Take Jesus for example, apparently he said "I and my father are one", does this not refer to transcendence? Or what about messages conveyed in Ezekiel, or Revelation? — Punshhh

Why would you take those passages as referring to transcendence?

Spare me your supercilious projections and faux-wisdom, Agustino. You know nothing of my actual feelings, motivations and thoughts, and only succeed in making yourself look more stupid by projecting what would seem to be your own pettiness onto others.