Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00230)

On Wed, 8 Jan 97 23:21:43 +0000, you wrote:

>Tom wrote:
>>Forms are commonly called "reality,"
>>but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I
>>would not include them in my definition of "reality." 
>
>
>Geez Tom,
>
>You recently spent a lot of energy trying to back up the notion that
>individuals constantly change, have no duration and hence no reality.
>Now you feign to make a statement that "forms are not real either" and
>then go on to say that "you" (presumably an individual? functionally
>dependant on a form or a set of forms?) have a definition of reality
>(isn't that just another mental form?) that you can create (how reliable
>a "principle" can it be if you're just making it up as you go along?) by
>choosing to additively include things as you fancy them. Aren't you just
>piling up lots of mental smoke into puffy little balls and then sneezing
>them into smithereens?
>
>I hope you're getting off on all this, because it's the only thing in
>what you said that makes any "real" sense to me.
>
>Mark

I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly
consistent, as I am incapable of such human error.  Individual human
beings, like all other forms, constantly change.  Only what cannot change
is real.  I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound.  I don't
even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway.