----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<5f1d2e19-fa30-473d-9925-cb7ec1f626ban@googlegroups.com> 97e8e3b3
@REPLY:
<ac745c57-960c-4681-a943-c1e66502bf29n@googlegroups.com> e7ad8eac
@REPLYADDR Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Lawyer Daggett
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<5f1d2e19-fa30-473d-9925-cb7ec1f626ban@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-References:
<f097ff99-8ab5-4f87-a61e-649e277d8132n@googlegroups.com> <759c8b2b-9931-47e4-8676-0cbb340153cdn@googlegroups.com>
<03e48931-b72f-414d-8295-1e0c82c2f642n@googlegroups.com> <b5f992e1-5167-455d-a572-82922059d81bn@googlegroups.com>
<iv7jgilull0tt8j1h2ppqblin8cjv2j47v@4ax.com> <c23d4af2-f48a-4811-b505-1be40d7c8080n@googlegroups.com>
<9jrngih43sutjhdivvpd9lsi9985kdcilq@4ax.com> <de5408e7-ce70-4975-a3c9-b39744a0ed3fn@googlegroups.com>
<v49tgihpu4s0pl78anc350medn95n8d73d@4ax.com> <48e8bac3-5b19-43b0-ae87-5e0ac6cc5911n@googlegroups.com>
<ac745c57-960c-4681-a943-c1e66502bf29n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:15:50 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49 PM UTC+1,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You haven`t answered any of MarkE`s questions in his reply to
this post of yours.
> >
> > It`s obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
> >
> > I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
> >
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >
> > That part ended at the following line:
> > > ==========================================
> > >
> > > [1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
> > > they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard`s writing is
> > > almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
> > > logic (in my words, not his) is:
> >
> > > - Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
> > I`m very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific
> > comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
> My guess would be from :"heart of Matter". And while one can
criticise Teilhard
> in lots of ways, this is not one of them. Essentially, he
revives the Aristotelian idea
> of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that`s where
they belong") with his
> process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static
> aspects. The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual
materialism. Not to everyone`s
> liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic
science", but consistent by design
> with Newtonian physics at the least.
>
> Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively
straightforward.
> Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely
because A and B want
> to be together does not mean they get together - in the words
of the Stones, "you can`t
> always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
.
Girl, you really got me now. You got me so I don`t know what I`m doing.
(I`m kinky that way)
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: University of Ediacara (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441