Whatever could not be represented as part, whole, equivalence, difference, bound, tie, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment can never be in equivalence to me.
(This is the rephrased version of the question I previously posted)
2006-12-02 20:14:43 · 7 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Who said that? (haven't seen your previous q.) Sounds reasonably - as all almost all philosophies...;) Shows a very logical wiev of the world and tells all about the man's wiev of it - all in all: in a relation.
Who's idea is that?
2006-12-02 20:26:06 · answer #1 · answered by Lady G. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, yeah, I agree. Considering there isn't ANYTHING that can't be represented as part, whole, equivalence, difference, bound, tie, influence, sensation,origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent or fulfillment.
2006-12-03 10:59:01 · answer #2 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever could not be represented as part.... equals a whole.
A whole equals representation...
The difference is bound and tied to influence...
Intent represents everything as a whole, therefore it fulfills equality. There are no rules and yet there are;if you cannot represent anything as a whole in understanding, you are left in a condition of vulnerability. Does it equal the 'me' syndrome?- 'No because we admit that time and space do not exist and your statement is invisible.
2006-12-03 23:56:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The oposite sex?
2006-12-03 04:26:43 · answer #4 · answered by khe_khae_mey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only one unique you!
2006-12-03 04:24:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
im no psycologist ....................
2006-12-03 04:23:05 · answer #6 · answered by vsrking 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
?
2006-12-03 04:32:46 · answer #7 · answered by Peter A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋