Apech

Why oh why?

Hurrah! Welcome back. Hope you've brought some chaff with you.

Hmmm don't think so. Where do you get this from.

Give them a mile and they'll take a ... http://chrammwild.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/chaffinch.jpg

Chaffinho.

I'm going shopping. I'll get some chaff if anyone wants some.

Well, you could just see it as a rock against which the soft and yielding water beats itself.

It was something to do with the chair you are sitting on.

Marbles is not trying to convert anyone ... he's just standing his ground. For that I respect him and enjoy the conversation ... even though we will never agree. In fact if we all agreed it would be very, very boring.

Not according to Marbles.

My dog's got no nose. How does it smell? Awful.

the essence is the irreducible which you find by analysis.

Nope.

Its the only true belief that I hold ... that I can understand ... that it is possible to understand everything even when at this present moment I don't. Everything else is just a working basis at best.

Yes I agree but I was sticking to the confines of science.

that's a quote from William Blake who was the furthest thing from a materialist that you can find.

No not me.

I kind of agree that Materialism is probably one the few philosophies which can be shown to be false, since matter itself is only a perceived effect of energy and space.

I believe I can understand what you mean. How's that for a start?

Always happy with you Gatito.

Yes please.

Oh ok I must have missed that.

A world at peace would not be this world ... which is clearly not at peace. In fact I think you could characterise this world as a sort a tussle between peace and strife (you will find a Greek philosopher who did just this ... can't remember which one). Dangerous dogs are a part of this world ... and characterise it as much as anything else. Perhaps if we saw the word differently then we would see the dogs differently. Perhaps we make them dangerous with our intent.

Ah! God = Tao ... what do you mean by God here? Do you mean the supreme being personal god? In which case I have never seen anything that suggests that Tao is a person. Although I suppose you could argue that whatever the Tao is must include person(s) otherwise you are excluding something from that which encompasses everything. We all need to define our terms.

Are we barking up the wrong tree?