Hi Kirt,

 

Thank you for your answer. 

I understand that you're stuck into your materialist point of view and do not want to accept the reality of mind, consciousness, spirit. 

Spiritualism can be dualist or monist, and so it doesn't necessarily leads to dichotomy. I also draw your attention on the existence of pantheism in which mind and matter are the two faces of the same coin.

I'm unable to understand how we could observe the universe, be conscious, think, write, and conceive systems without a mind, and also how life could reach such a level of organisation without some kind of intelligence. Darwinian theory of evolution explains some facts, but without a pilot, evolution wouldn't be able to produce steps such as from a land mammal to whales, per example. In such a step, mutations have to be synchronised and planed somehow. I'm not speaking of a God, but of some kind of immanent psyche. I'm not religious and I have no beliefs, neither even in "instincto" nor in "meta".  Methodical doubt is an important, if not the most important part of my thinking.   

It seems to me so obvious that materialism cannot explain the world we live in that I'm unwilling to argue about it. The most evolved philosophical materialist theory, the "dialectic materialism", doesn't withstand close investigation. 

There's been already so much arguing about these subjects that I feel useless and tiring to argue again and again about it. Any basic treaty of philosophy shows quite well that materialism cannot explain the known facts. Furthermore, most scientists also agree. See Hoyle, Charon, Capra, Pauli, Einstein and several others. 

I guess philosophy is also off topic for this list and such a debate would take too many and too long mails. 

If we disagree on such basic points, our debate will never come to an end. I also feel you are only trying to put me in a corner and crush me, rather than willing to try to understand my points. You say : 

 

 "Since meta includes anal and
adult-prepubescent sex as natural, I thought it made an interesting contrast
in trauma."

and : " It seems like a logical piece is missing from the equation. Hypothesize this
 IMP, and then jump to having sex with children for their own good"

 

Here you explain me what is "meta". If you already know, don't ask me, please. 

What logical piece you have missing?

Mind, spirit? Or the parts 6,7,8,.I didn't write ?

 

Some of my answers may go astray and my knowledge is limited. I see you won't miss your target : you'll use my stupid and confuse words against the instincto and meta theories. So I think it'd be better you ask the architect himself if you wanna know more about his building. He speaks perfect English, unlike me. You can get his address from [log in to unmask] 

 

In the meantime I'll try to find the books you refer to and read'em.

 

Best regards,

Francois

 

PS: some links in my former mail didn't work because of  the =20 at their end. 

Suppress it and they'll work

 

 

 

   

 

          

.