Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah
To   : Todd Henson
From : John Wilson
Date : Sat Nov 04 2000 03:34 pm

-=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOHN WILSON <=-

 >

 TH> So, you were referring to the universe itself being alive. OK.
 TH> But, wan't it you who disagreed
 TH> when I said that you said that the continuum itself was alive?

 Nope. What do you mean exactly, by "continuum?" Space-time?
 
 TH> That would make this recent
 TH> answer contradictory to your previous one, so I'm a bit confused
 TH> now.
     

     -----------


 TH> Also, if you were referring to the univsere itself being alive,
 TH> then another bit of confusion arises. I
 TH> asked why  you thought the universe was alive. If you said
 TH> because of the presence of
 TH> intelligence in the universe, then what you basically said was "I
 TH> believe the universe is alive
 TH> because I believe it is alive".

     No. I enter no "because" in my opinion.
     
  So I don't know quite what to
 TH> make of that.

     You are confused by thinking I said things I didn't,
     and then drawing conclusions contradicting things I *did* say.

 >    ============================
 >
 >  TH> That's like saying a baby learned how to build a computer when it
 >  TH> did.
 >
 >  A baby with an infinite about of time to play with her infinite
 >  rescouces...
 >
 >  Did! The Baby was mankind of course, and we as a race are still very
 >  young...


 TH> I thought the universe was the baby, learning as it goes along.

 Exactly. Baby universe. Baby mankind. We're ALL learnin' :-)

 Mebbie Baby Mankind isn't the smartest or the most knowledgable
 in the Universe, but we're helpin' ! :-)
 (The Universe draws from Everywhere :-)


 >  -----------------------------------------
 >
 >  TH> If so, then that leaves your conjectures about a created,
 >  TH> learning universe unfinished, and
 >  TH> hence equally fruitless.
 >
 >  Ah, but do you really think it is fruitless seeing through a glass,
 >  darkly?
                                          
 TH> One doesn't necessarily relate to the other in this case.

  Well, *I* did :-)                       

 TH> To say
 TH> that a particular ideology is
 TH> flawed doesn't impact the overall issue of seeing through the
 TH> glass darkly.

    We're not talkin' `ideology' here, we're talkin conjecture. :-)
    And sure it does! Just what do you think was referenced in
    that passage? The unfruitfulness of things seen `darkly'?

    All are flawed and fall short of the glory of finished, fruitful
    conjecture. :-)

    True of Paul. True of You. True of me.







.... When I was a kid we chiseled taglines on the cave wall!
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715)

.