Ok, but how does that follow from the assertion that space has no meaning unless there are things happening within it?
Okey-doke. You're still under that redemption plan, then. Because of the name-change I assumed you were back to that revolving door of sock-puppets again. My bad. Well, if the title was putatively intended as a backroad route to monism ["A being is one... a single Being... etc"], maybe William James could be called to paramedic duty. To liven things up with a contrasting view or something... A Pluralistic Universe
Universe..multiverse..why not the "polyverse"--as a "bricolage" or assemblage of distinct disrelated elements repurposed for aesthetic affect? Everything it's own ontic substance--each entity a new way of being. And nothing to bind them together except their interactions. A surreal landscape of horses, combs, pineapples, comic books, and matchsticks.We make much of relatedness--do we fully appreciate the prevalence of disrelatedness?
Perhaps I should elaborate. It's not so much that there needs to be happenings to add meaning, there needs to be meaning added to the happenings. There is a misunderstanding by what adds meaning. Meaning is derived from perception and imagination. The universe looked like nothing until there were eyes, and those sights meant nothing until there was a brain behind them.
There are people who interact within themselves and others do not believe it is reality.. which just goes to show for every... blah... there is an equal and opposite... blah blah...
Self-interaction or intrapersonal communication. Everybody does it: "Intrapersonal communication is language use or thought internal to the communicator. It can be useful to envision intrapersonal communication occurring in the mind of the individual in a model which contains a sender, receiver, and feedback loop. Although successful communication is generally defined as being between two or more individuals, issues concerning the useful nature of intrapersonal communication made some argue that this definition is too narrow. In Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry, Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson argue that intrapersonal communication is indeed a special case of interpersonal communication, as "dialogue is the foundation for all discourse." Intrapersonal communication can encompass: --Day-dreaming --Nocturnal dreaming, including and especially lucid dreaming --Speaking aloud (talking to oneself), reading aloud, repeating what one hears; the additional activities of speaking and hearing (in the third case of hearing again) what one thinks, reads or hears may increase concentration and retention. This is considered normal, and the extent to which it occurs varies from person to person. The time when there should be concern is when talking to oneself occurs outside of socially acceptable situations. --Internal monologue, the semi-constant internal monologue one has with oneself at a conscious or semi-conscious level. --Writing (by hand, or with a word processor, etc.) one's thoughts or observations: the additional activities, on top of thinking, of writing and reading back may again increase self-understanding ("How do I know what I mean until I see what I say?") and concentration. It aids ordering one's thoughts; in addition it produces a record that can be used later again. Copying text to aid memorizing also falls in this category. Writing need not be limited to words in a natural or even formal language. Doodling also falls into this category. Children may be communicating intrapersonally when they doodle and adults sometimes argue that they do... --Making gestures while thinking: the additional activity, on top of thinking, of body motions, may again increase concentration, assist in problem solving, and assist memory. Again, routinely observed in children, the equivalent of doodling without writing. Everyday images are transformed by gestures that form a new lens through which to view the images. --Sense-making (see Karl Weick) e.g. interpreting maps, texts, signs, and symbols --Interpreting non-verbal communication (see Albert Mehrabian) e.g. gestures, eye contact --Communication between body parts; e.g. "My stomach is telling me it's time for lunch."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrapersonal_communication
That's the longest and most coherent post I recall you ever making. Philosophy isn't just a matter of pretending to be the Delphic Oracle. It isn't just a matter of writing short sentences that express ideas that seem cosmic to you. Cosmic ideas are fine, but you need to explain what you mean by them. "Interaction is a reality"? Wonderful, but so what? Who has ever denied it? Why is the reality of interaction something that you want to discuss? Is there some particular kind of interaction that you are thinking of and that's of particular interest to you? Don't just make short cryptic announcements of things that you believe. If you think that you possess some unique insights, help us understand what they are. Then keep going and try to give us some plausible reasons why we might want to share your ideas along with you.
That is because I like to make it short and sweet so that many people read it. No, Philosophy is the love of wisdom. I was thinking of interaction in general. Are you saying my efforts to do so are not perceived? Yes, I realize most of my posts are short but I put a lot of thought into each and every one of them. Sometimes I wait a number of days before posting in order to satisfy my standards of perfection.
Philosophy is the love of life experience which brings wisdom often best understood in a "nearly" or "seemingly" timeless short sentances. It is a way of thought in life. Some people make books out of it. But the books are useless If you are afraid to live the forewarnings of philosophers. Philosophy is ones moral outlook and demeanor of life and others.. Every person has their own. Every person can enhance another's. Philosophers write about their own experiences in hidden words. If you undergo the saame experience of life you will relate better to the individual philosopher. So read the aphorisms then read the BOOKS! Not the other way around. Some aphorisms still have to be lived to be understood.
