[MD] A larger system of understanding

[John Carl]

John blows the whistle and calls foul:

Ham:


> Why isn't 'Being and Becoming' a valid interpretation of experiential
> reality?  It certainly represents the existentialist position of Heidegger
> and Sartre.  Moreover, it also takes "nothingness" into account, as
> "becoming" infers coming into existence from nothing.
>

John:

Wtf?  What happened to ex niliho nilo fit?  I'd say you just uttered an
impossibility.

Becoming infers change.  Being changes into something different, and we call
that process "becoming".

I still say there's no such thing as nothing.

Being=SQ
Becoming=DQ

And that's all there is.




> The "error" I allude to is the concept of intellect as a supra-human
> "domain" rather than a function of human reasoning.


I fail to see a true distinction between "supra-human domains" and
"functions of human reasonings".


>
> Hey, but what do I know?  I'm only the elephant in a room of Pirsigians.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Ham
>
>
Well there's a peanut to hold you over.  I'm still working through our last
dialogue and need to finish that up.

Hold on!

John