[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,  I can't remember if I responding to this post, but here is
another thought.
>
> On 08/12/2010 06:47, Ham Priday wrote:
>>
>> The truth of the matter is that what is not experiencable to human beings
>> is indefinable. Therefore, attempts to define ultimate Reality as a
>> qualitative abstraction, such as Being, Consciousness, Energy, Value, or
>> Goodness are no more valid than equating it to a known physical entity.
>> Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the principle of the
>> 'Not-other', which is arguably the best working definition possible for
>> metaphysical reality.
>>
>> Essentially speaking,
>> Ham

[Mark]
I am not sure what you mean by experienceable.   There are many things
that we cannot experience, yet have a concept for.  We cannot
experience a complete vacuum, but we can define it.  We cannot
experience life ever after, but we can define it.  We have the ability
to extrapolate to that which we cannot experience.  Like: "It feels
like this, only 10 times as strong", or, "Bosons exist according to
the math, but they have no mass".

Just because we cannot experience something, doesn't mean that we
can't create the experience for it.

In terms of validity, your statement above should contain the words
"less valid" instead of "more valid".  In my opinion.

Cheers,
Mark
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>