Author: oldFriend (---.VCLIENT.CWRU.Edu)
Date: 04-26-06 17:36
"That words might not even exist (including the word "is" by the way, no joke here)"
Perhaps this is one of those points I responded to but didn't post the response. Use of a language that does not use the word "is" explicitly (of which I believe there have been a number), does not imply that the concept is unavailable or trivial to the speaker/writer. The parts left out of languages are those parts that are implied by the context of the communication. I can't quite put a finger on the discomfort I've had reading your recent posts. It seems that your quest for inclusivity ***rules out*** particular worldviews. Instead, I take the angle that each worldview makes its own internal sense and none functions as an absolute. Why should a world religion be inclusive? Because it makes sense in the system that you are using to answer the question. There are no important answers, there is only the experience of going beyond the questions. After that, it IS all play.
ps - You used nihilistic a few posts above as a pejorative. I wonder why. I also wonder how you would differentiate true 'far eastern thought' from a nihilistic 'Western interpretation'.