================================================ Subject: Re: Meaning of life according to Ewa part 2 From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Sun 20 May 2001 23:57:40 -0400 ================================================ Meaning is the association or an abstract thing. such as a word to a real object such as a chair. Then also using other abstractions to relate either real or imagined things together into a comparative valued idea. But a mind is a real thing. Which can not communicate. Except with using senses, then using areas of it that specialize with that process. I agree that there may be more senses. Besides the 5 senses that are known to most people. But, there are people that don't have the 5 senses by nature. But the blind can use tools to communicate in text with the seeing and there is no way to even know that they cannot see. Likewise, there are deaf people that can type messages to the hearing. But it is hard to know that they are deaf. My question. Isn't electronic communication sort of a sixth sense? I've talked with several non-seeing people on the Internet and it was absolutely hard to tell any difference in thier comments to the questions or thier perspectives. I know that the sixth sense is considered super-natural. But "natural" is not the same for all of us. Jim fmn wrote: > or I've got another "enlightened" (hehe) idea: such a thing as a > meaning can not be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or felt primvm dvm, > ergo one is searching for that which can not be found by means of our > natural senses - but what about our super - natural senses (which I > believe we do possess) and what about the mind itself? It's more > complicated than the senses which are very primitive in comparison > with the mind (animals also possess senses, but not a mind, at least > not for me, don't know about you, though?) Anyway what do you say now? > > have I not outwitted the fellow here?"> ;-) can't wait to read your > reply to that! > > Yeah, I agree on the "evolutionary speaking"-aspect. But I don't think > that science and transcendentalism/ spiritualism/ God/ all-controlling > force (however you want to name it) exclude one another. It's all of > those false interpretations that make this statement seem paradox > (take the creation of the world according to the Bible as an example - > so many people quarrel about it - and this quarrel is based on the > misinterpretation of the Bible, isn't it?). > > gotta go, dobranoc > > Ewa > > > > > -- Ginsberg's Theorem: (1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit the game. Freeman's Commentary on Ginsberg's theorem: Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's Theorem. To wit: (1) Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. (2) Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. (3) Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp