@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:Gotsham does exist. If you have a conception of it, then it is that conception, if not, it is just the sound made upon pronunciation of the word and the arrangement of letters. By adding an 's' to the string, you do not necessarily imply a multitude of some object unless you shift your conception to the plural, in which case, yes, the conception you have created corresponding to the string of letters and possibly the sound produced by them does indeed exist. A small aside; If you are put of by playing with definitions I wonder how it is beneficial that you carouse the logic section(though in actuality this is a metaphysical discussion).
Anthrobus:
As to the intertwined actuality of substance and appearance, I would agree. I would say that the appearance is caused by physical a stimulus in the sense that it is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Sense is intertwined with that which is sensed. The appearance of the object might be the only sensual aspect of it, but it has a physical manifestation of the chemical process which produces your conception of it. Thus it is indeed physical and has bearing on other physical objects. Thus though the substance of the conception of a unicorn and the substance of an 'actual' unicorn are distinct, both still have substance.
I want to note also that difference in substance can be measured in various ways. For example: What if I had hallucinated the unicorn? Well, then I will not receive any confirmation of its existence from those who should have been able to see it. Also, there should be no physical irregularities such as say, a gravitational pull indicating a massive object where I see the unicorn. If there is physical or personal confirmation of the unicorn, then it may not fit within the parameters of 'imaginary' or a 'hallucination', but it still may not fit into the parameters of 'real' like a table would.
I understand that I am taking a very physicalist approach to this, but I don't see any sense in not doing so, since the only distinction between the 'spiritual' and the 'physical' is a set of nebulous definitions.
WHAT OF THIS: Let us conjecture that there is a
HIGHER ETHEREAL, and a
LOWER ETHEREAL, the former being
SUBSTANTIAL, and the latter being
PHENOMENAL, the former being allied completely and totally to a state of
ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, and the latter being allied completely and totally to a state of ABSOLUTE LIGHT: is this not, and in fact, the true nature of our
COSMOS, and will anyone doubt it. Two separate realms, unknowable both to themselves and to each other, a state of fundamental and
ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE. We, and, of course, exist in the
LOWER ETHEREAL: the state of
ABSOLUTE LIGHT, and our sector of the
COSMOS is purely and solely
PHENOMENAL, and but it exists nonetheless, the
HIGHER ETHEREAL: the state of
ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, and not our sector of the
COSMOS is purely and solely SUBSTANTIAL, or but it exists nonetheless. I'm taking a very
IDEALISTIC stance here, and never, therefore, shall the twain meet. But still the
UNICORN shall feel free to
EXIST, and if even only as a phenomenon...Perhaps there can be a state of the MEAN ETHEREAL where everything mixes, and perhaps that is a truer picture of things. But, and given ZETETIC that you threw in the notion of non-separability, and with regard to the spiritual, and the physical, well then, I thought I'd throw this speculation into the pot...as it were....what do you think ZETETIC...
