yes, that statement was wrong, if you always meant ‘indirectly’, that simply wasnt how i took it at the time. see me admitting a mistake? thats how you do it.
Ok. Maybe we shall get somewhere. Obviously “self-referential” could mean both directly or indirectly referencing itself. And, of course, I made it very clear that this is what I mean. But, whatever.
Now, to your question: **are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? if so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion? **
Yes, that is what I am suggesting. For the sake of clarity: “this is merely a suggestion, not an absolute statement”. I do not say that I deny outright, that these are the only two types of existence. Clear enough for you?
Since you asked why, these are several reasons for it. Number one: “it is not clear just what this alleged third kind of existence means?”. Until this question is answered in a clear, precise manner there is no way to get any further.
A long, long time ago, I already started at least one (maybe more) threads about this subject (under a different pen name). I suggested a terminology of “P-existence” for physical existence, “C-existence” for conceptual existence and “X-existence” for the rest.
P-existence is “simple”. We all know what is meant by that. P-existence is active.
C-existence is not that simple. It can involve concept about P-existence (physical sciences), concepts about C-existence itself (philosophy) and concepts about totally imaginary objects, like fairies, leprechauns, all sorts of fairy tales. It also contains concepts about this assumed, third type of existence “X-existence”. C-existence is inactive. Concepts cannot directly influence P-existing objects.
Now, here comes the first problem. The concepts about this third type of existence are not clearly defined. Different people define it differently. Catholics and Protestants have somewhat similar, but not identical concepts of it. Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Zoroastians, etc. have also very different ideas about it. And these concepts are not just “somewhat different”, in some minor, inconsequential details, they are different on major levels, they outright contradict each other. Also, X-existence is supposed to be active. It can directly influence the P-existence. The “how” can it do that, is undefined. It is simply assumed.
In one word: X-existence is
undefined. Why should anyone be bothered with accepting a concept, which is undefined?
Now, of course, all those who believe that X-existence is “real” (and what does “real” mean here is also undefined) will vigorously assert that
their concept is right, and all the other ones are wrong. Hardly a promising start.
When they are asked
on what ground do they assert that their concept is the correct one, there are several answers.
- There is usually a reference to some “holy book”. In every instance this “holy book” is an old text, written by ignorant, superstitious people, who had absolutely no idea about nature. For them it was a huge “mystery”. They told stories about some “creator”. These books are loaded with nonsensical assertions. Magic is abound in them. For a long time, this was enough. People believed what they were told, and were threatened with all sorts of repercussions (in this life and in the afterlife) if they dared to dissent.
- Then there are some, so-called “proofs”, usually some line of argument, which is supposed to lead to the existence of a “supernatural”. The problem with these “proofs” (which really should be called arguments!) is multi-fold. Either they start with a poorly defined, nonsensical concept, like the “greatest conceivable being” and go straight downhill from there. Or they presume some natural phenomenon, and assert that this phenomenon cannot be “explained” unless one posits an external cause. The problems with this are also multi-fold, but they rest with the specific assumptions (first cause, sustaining cause, etc.) There is one problem which permeates all of them: “the logical fallacy of composition”. They all point to some natural phenomenon or attribute, and assert that it is also applicable to the universe itself. They don’t attempt to prove this, it is simply assumed. Then there are some ontological arguments. They introduce all sorts of strange concepts (necessary and contingent existence) which are pretty much meaningless, and when filled with some meaning, they lead nowhere.
- Then there are the ramifications of the “X-existence”. These come from specific attribute assigned to the “X-existing” being (or beings). These attributes are always exeggarated to the extreme, which pretty much robs them of any sensible meaning. Also the logical results of these attributes are notoriously missing from P-existence. To account for that, all sorts of rationalizations are used.
So, the consolidated reason for my suggestion is simple. The definition of “X-existence” is undefined. When some definition is suggested, it leads nowhere (best case) or leads to direct contradiction to what we do know from our own experience. The worst part is the shameless rationalization the believers of “X-existence” will put up as “arguments” for their beliefs.
This is the basis for my suggestion. Now, this is quite a chunk. But you asked, and I answered. Was it just another waste of time? Who knows?
