Deleteduserrc

We've stalled again. I'll try one last time: Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another...

Again: Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another? I assume that's what the equals sign...

So is that a yes or no?

I'm trying to get you to clarify, to be as precise as possible, because what you're saying is not clear. The phrase 'being everything' is confusing an...

Just to make sure I understand. In your usage "being everything" means 'being a part of everything"?

You've explained what you mean by 'everything.' I'm asking what the phrase 'being everything' means. I ask that because you've used it multiple times ...

I'm not interested in pursuing any line of conversation until we work through the one you've stalled on.

What does "being everything" mean?

What does "being everything" mean?

We've stalled on 'being everything' - which you seem oddly reluctant to elaborate on. We have to get past that before we can move on. You've explained...

I sincerely don't understand what you're saying. What does 'being everything' mean?

sorry for the curt response, it was late. I just think the individual/totality debate is orthogonal to what I'm attempting to talk about, tho parts of...

@"Terrapin Station" It sounds to me like what you're saying would boil down to treating existence as a property, which is a notoriously fraught idea. ...

What does 'being everything' mean?

I disagree.

Are they saying the world is constituted only by certain individuals, or are they saying that every thing is constituted in the same way as certain in...

I have this vague feeling that you can have univocity without, at least, the kind of monism I was talking about in the OP. Would def have to think mor...

What does 'being everything' mean?

Are you trying to say that anything that exists has being? Everything that is, is?

I understand that you're trying to show that the card analogy works. I find the elaboration confusing though. To take one part: What do you mean here?...

What do you mean?

Yeahh. I guess all I'd say is here is what a million people before have said -which is - why is this 'materialist'?? I'd say it isn't, really, and its...

In terms of responding to the OP, this is the right answer.

I don't think so? I think it's more like they're carrying on two different seminars in two different parts of the house. I don't think they blend well...

I'm somewhat familiar with this idea, but I think you drew out very well how it applies here. But still (and ofc, this is Zizek and not you, but - I d...

I know! I'm trying to say that bringing that analysis to bear on Kant is confused, and confusing.

That's what I'm saying!

I get this, I swear! My example - the village- was designed (tho maybe poorly) to accommodate these very ideas. So I know my kid Richard Nixon (love y...

Yeah but one water's not actually water and my kid, who I happened to name Richard Nixon, isn't actually Richard Nixon, that other guy. My sense is th...

I think I follow so far. That's why, in my example, I talked about a specific village who named the substance in their pond.

I wonder to what extent this bears on Kant. You've had your hands full discussing Kripke with people who want to discuss Kripke, but not on Kripke's t...

I agree with this. The 'fact of the matter' is surely independent of conceptualization. But to determine whether our metaphysical ideas correspond wit...

If there is such a thing as the 'set of everything', then, yes, in identifying anything, you would be identifying an element of that set.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I don't think so? I'm not sure what that would mean exactly though.

Hah, alright. I couldn't tell to what extent you were endorsing those ideas. I think this is more or less how I'm thinking of things at the moment. I ...

@"fdrake" I guess there's also a silent presence here. I tried, over a half-decade ago, to understand Badiou, and I didn't. I know you've read him. Wh...

I just mean: how ok are you with a metaphysics that means nothing new can come into existence? Off of this

I am curious -to what extent are you willing to take that hit ( the lack of novelty) ?

Hats off to Triadicism then.

That's fair. I should have been saying 'substance monism' or 'substance monist' not 'monism' and 'monist'

This analogy doesn't work because cards are a very small subset of everything. If we weren't able to differentiate cards from other things, we wouldn'...

:lol:

Thanks, I think I understand what you're saying now, and it does seem to bypass the problem I was trying to identify in the OP. This might be a naive ...

This makes sense to me, especially the emphasis on constraints and limits. I still have a reflexive distrust of the idea that any positive claim can b...

Reversing the order makes sense. Spinoza never quite clicked for me, and I've never finished the Ethics, but I've thought, rightly or wrongly, that th...

Of course there's differentiation everywhere. And monism is peculiar w/r/t differentiation - a baked-in peculiarity.

Yes, because once you accept the irreducibility, you've come to a place where any rational fixed-point has to be jettisoned. You don't leave monism fo...

Hah! As opposed to being a final, settled reflection of reality as it is. But I don't think this repeats the same confusion I was trying to highlight.