Actually, I didn't make it up at all. It is an old concept that has been around for thousands of years. I'm a little surprised that you don't know that. In any case your disdain for my answer to your question is clearly evident in your reply.Warpus said:You have never sufficiently explained this concept, or explained the arguments you think that support it.
Birdjaguar said:The concept is that there is an underlying unity to all existence that is permanent and unchanging and that the individual elements of the physical universe in whatever way they appear are just transitory manifestations of that unity.
There are no "arguments" that support it. One can make the claim merely as an assumption in an intellectual argument and build case for some view of the universe. Or One can make it based on experience.
Ahh, so you made it up then. Should have said so from the start!
What is interesting to me, though, is first, you seem to imply that because you thought that I had made it up, it has less value than if someone else had made it up, and second that you fail to grasp that all concepts are put into words by people (unless you accept that they could be inspired by some other, unseen entitiy).
Do you really think that the value of a "concept" should be tied to the person using it or who is usually associated with it? I would think that the value of a concept would be better measured by its usefulness. If you find the concept I presented of little value, for reasons other than you thought I had made it up, I would like to know what those reason are. If you find it of little value simply because you thought I had made it up, then don't bother.