Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00162)

Tom wrote:
>Forms are commonly called "reality,"
>but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I
>would not include them in my definition of "reality." 


Geez Tom,

You recently spent a lot of energy trying to back up the notion that
individuals constantly change, have no duration and hence no reality.
Now you feign to make a statement that "forms are not real either" and
then go on to say that "you" (presumably an individual? functionally
dependant on a form or a set of forms?) have a definition of reality
(isn't that just another mental form?) that you can create (how reliable
a "principle" can it be if you're just making it up as you go along?) by
choosing to additively include things as you fancy them. Aren't you just
piling up lots of mental smoke into puffy little balls and then sneezing
them into smithereens?

I hope you're getting off on all this, because it's the only thing in
what you said that makes any "real" sense to me.

Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com