On May 19, 4:49 am, herbzet <herb... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps, after all, the only things there are, are classes ... ;-)

Perhaps, after all, the only things there are, are super-middleweight
boxers.

On May 20, 5:43 am, herbzet <herb... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
kleptomaniac6... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
On May 19, 4:49 am, herbzet <herb... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps, after all, the only things there are, are classes ... ;-)

Perhaps, after all, the only things there are, are super-middleweight
boxers.

How about "weightless generalized principles" (Buckminster Fuller)?

Any better?

Well, I was joking. It makes no sense to say "the only things there
are, are <such and such>".

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

How about the Chinese word $BF;(B $B!$(Bwhich is "Tao" in English?- Hide quoted text -

I don't know, perhaps the word 'money' describes a lot....and that

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

Jason Glumidge wrote:
On May 28, 10:38 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Jason Glumidge wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use
I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.
Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.
All best, J.
Kant uses the term "manifold".
"Everything" could include phenomena, and noumena or things in
themselves. But according to transcendental idealism, things in
themselves are not things per se - they would not be included in the
term 'everything'.

Sorry, you've lost me. Things are not things? This sounds somewhat
kooky to my ears.

Kant's 'things in themselves' are things by name only. They refer to
objects that can have no possible description. We would not know how to
include them in a totality of everything.

You also can't have a set of everything. A set is distinguished by its
particular use, so it is difficult to see what particular use could be
accorded to everything, as a 'use' supposes an extra thing which uses.

You also can't use the term 'everything' to include incommensurables.
Liebniz'z monads, for example, as self-contained mirrors of the entire
world could not be countable (except by a presumed deity) and so could
not be included in a totality of 'everything'.

Simply, 'everything' presupposes that all things are alike and so
countable into a totality. But as I showed above, some 'things' cannot
be so included.

Again not entirely clear what you mean here. Things are that which can
be counted as individuals - i.e. they possess numerical identity. It's
a quality that they all necessarily share, and the concept that
underpins logic.

Some 'things' can't be counted: Liebnizean monads, solitary objects,
personal identity, Kant's intuitions or manifesting conditions of
objects. We might want to include Platonic Ideas which, before they are
particularized and countable, are uncountable ideal forms

Other uncountables include archetypes, numbers, symbols, ... in fact there are
a lot of uncountable things. How will these be included in a totality of
everything?

As such, simply stating that you've shown that some
things can't be included via collectivization doesn't really convince
me. But, of course, thanks for the feedback nonetheless ;)

This should convince you: if we say that a 'totality' is enough to list
'everything' then we leave out everything that can't be listed in a
totality. Such things as those I spoke of.

On May 30, 3:52 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Jason Glumidge wrote:

Some 'things' can't be counted: Liebnizean monads, solitary objects,
personal identity, Kant's intuitions or manifesting conditions of
objects. We might want to include Platonic Ideas which, before they are
particularized and countable, are uncountable ideal forms

See my last answer ;)

Other uncountables include archetypes, numbers, symbols, ... in fact there are
a lot of uncountable things. How will these be included in a totality of
everything?

I'm not sure numerical identity exactly equates to sets of things
being countable in terms of cardinality.

As such, simply stating that you've shown that some
things can't be included via collectivization doesn't really convince
me. But, of course, thanks for the feedback nonetheless
This should convince you: if we say that a 'totality' is enough to list
'everything' then we leave out everything that can't be listed in a
totality. Such things as those I spoke of.

I'd totally agree with you there....if there was any suggestion that
all those non-things you mentioned existed, or if we were actually
talking about collectivizing every "thing" - the concept I was looking
for (originally) concerned the view of a universal whole /before/ its
chopped up into things, so this might all be a red herring. Again,
thanks for the feedback, its all interesting stuff.

I don't know, perhaps the word 'money' describes a lot....and that
which
it can't we can pay someone else to do it, heh?

In German there is the phrase "das All", which is a synonym of "the
universe".