Print

Print


Ah yes, but existence of what?
P.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:37 AM
  Subject: Re: Conversations in Bloomsbury (Eliot and India)


  Peter, your verb implies existence. Diana
  Peter wrote: It is rather simple that the ultimate particle suffers from non-existence.

  I accuse you of unnecessary, if entertaining, complexity.
  P.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Diana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
  To: <[log in to unmask]>
  Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:07 AM
  Subject: Re: Conversations in Bloomsbury (Eliot and India)


  > Peter I accuse you of glibness. Heidegger and Sartre wrote volumes on
  > non-existence. Holderlin took it as his main theme. Hamlet struggled with
  it
  > for an entire play. Eliot in the Four Quartets contemplated non-existent
  > children that in some way tormented him. And on and on. If everyone agreed
  > with your assertion, literature for one would be less extant (that is,
  lost
  > somewhere in non-existence.) Best, Diana
  >
  >
  > From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
  > Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
  > To: [log in to unmask]
  > Subject: Re: Conversations in Bloomsbury (Eliot and India)
  > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:51:23 -0700
  >
  > Non-existence is simple.
  > P.
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "Diana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
  > To: <[log in to unmask]>
  > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:31 AM
  > Subject: Re: Conversations in Bloomsbury (Eliot and India)
  >
  >
  >  > Peter, there is a bit of difference between simple and non-existent,
  no?
  >  > Diana
  >  >
  >  > The ultimte particle, of its nature, is simple.
  >  > P.
  >  > ----- Original Message -----
  >  > From: "Diana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
  >  > To: <[log in to unmask]>
  >  > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:18 PM
  >  > Subject: Re: Conversations in Bloomsbury (Eliot and India)
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  > Peter, CR sent me an article by Deepak Chopra in which he says "the
  >  >  > essential nature of the material world is that it is not material."
  I
  >  > sense
  >  >  > that there is a connection with that and the statement that there is
  > no
  >  >  > ultimate particle. If your understanding lends itself to
  verbalization
  >  > and
  >  >  > you feel inclined to expand your intriguing two-word hint, I'm all
  > ears!
  >  > Or
  >  >  > was that the verbal equivalent of the guru's smile? Diana
  >  >  >
  >  >  > From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
  >  >  >
  >  >  > "There is no ultimate particle," he said with a  smile that
  >  >  > hinted at an understanding I'm still trying to get my mind around
  and
  >  >  > probably never will!
  >  >  > ===============
  >  >  > It's simple.
  >  >  > P.
  >  >  >
  >  >  >
  >  >  > --
  >  >  > No virus found in this incoming message.
  >  >  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  >  >  > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date:
  > 8/21/2006
  >  >  >
  >  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  > --
  >  > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
  >  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  >  > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date:
  8/21/2006
  >  >
  >  >
  >
  >
  > --
  > No virus found in this incoming message.
  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/430 - Release Date: 8/28/2006
  >
  >




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 8/29/2006