For Atthet
Your express yourself in such a childish manner.
One question for you.
The Scriptures are very interesting to read, as is a pyschology book or a history book. If you read it in this context, without any bias, either way, the words become clearer. So, chill, for a moment and ponder. Can you give me an answer for the question below? Then I will try to answer your questions in your post.
Why was Abraham asked to do this and can you see the meaning in it?
Teaching Satyr Evolution
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Steven Pinker - Jews, Genes, and Intelligence
1
2
3
4
Pinker leaves out the Holocaust factor in selecting for intelligence.
Those who were of a certain status got to escape Nazi Germany, those who were not became imprisoned and they died, most probably due to disease and hunger.
Some, namely Mencken, have attributed the Renaissance to a similar depopulation effect known as the Black Plague.
Steven Pinker: Human Nature and the Blank Slate
1
2
3
4
Pinker leaves out the Holocaust factor in selecting for intelligence.
Those who were of a certain status got to escape Nazi Germany, those who were not became imprisoned and they died, most probably due to disease and hunger.
Some, namely Mencken, have attributed the Renaissance to a similar depopulation effect known as the Black Plague.
Steven Pinker: Human Nature and the Blank Slate
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
You should answer questions posed to you first, before expecting your own questions to be answered, you female philosopher.reasonvemotion wrote:Why was Abraham asked to do this and can you see the meaning in it?
Your feminine guile does not work here, as it did with your ex-husband. You should not expect to get freebies in life, without putting out. You have a vagina, you should have learned this by now? Nothing in life is free, especially not questions, not answers, and not philosophy.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
reasonvemotion wrote:
Why was Abraham asked to do this and can you see the meaning in it?
Atthet wrote:
You should answer questions posed to you first, before expecting your own questions to be answered, you female philosopher.
Your feminine guile does not work here, as it did with your ex-husband. You should not expect to get freebies in life, without putting out. You have a vagina, you should have learned this by now? Nothing in life is free, especially not questions, not answers, and not philosophy.
John 3:16 contains the same words God said to Abraham For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son—the Son He loved. He did not withhold His Son in recovering the lost family. Abraham put on the altar his most cherished possession—his life in his son. God put on the altar His most cherished possession—His life in His Son.
So, we see here that the term "only begotten" is in reference to the unique son of God and Isaac was acting out the sacrifice of Christ, prophetically.
It was a test of Abraham's faith. This is how I interpret it.
To your reference that the choice of male was because man was superior to woman, this I cannot accept. "Superior" is the wrong choice of word and you use it over and over again. Read below.
Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
There is no inequality in that verse and there are more.
I could find many more examples but if the recipient's mind is closed it is without purpose. I think the two examples I have given is enough, but it will be to no avail.
Re: Evolution
If you want to discuss theology, then take this to another thread, genetic feces.
A quick point...isn't it interesting in Christianity that God intervenes to prevent Abraham from committing the sacrifice of Isaac, but, when it comes to his own son, your "Christ" figure, that God himself did not intervene in the crucifixion of Christ? Think about it, female philosopher!
A quick point...isn't it interesting in Christianity that God intervenes to prevent Abraham from committing the sacrifice of Isaac, but, when it comes to his own son, your "Christ" figure, that God himself did not intervene in the crucifixion of Christ? Think about it, female philosopher!
Ha, great video, thanks SatyrSatyr wrote:Egalitarian Tactics (War on Common Sense)
We can say that this is part of the overall "dumbing-down" and this enforced schizophrenia and "learned autism".
The education system is producing scores of these automatons, more interested in finding a job, earning money and getting laid.
This is also why females are now surpassing males in graduation rates.
Females make the perfect specialist. They can follow precedent, the recipe, without ever going off the shared script.
The repeat, verbatim, parrot perfectly, regurgitate with consistent predictability.
The perfect worker-bee.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Atthet,
Your childish attempts at calling people names, and your glee in resorting to quoting Satyr constantly, only exposes your absolute lack of knowledge and sophistication in just about everything you post.
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
Your childish attempts at calling people names, and your glee in resorting to quoting Satyr constantly, only exposes your absolute lack of knowledge and sophistication in just about everything you post.
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Satyr wrote:
Best you ask persmission from "the Boss" as it was he who first posted about this.
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
Got it?
Atthet/Pathetic wrote:The most striking example of the Judeo-Christian hatred of life, is in the story of Abraham.
Here a God tells Abraham, his minion, to kill his own and only son.
What man, what being would ever ask this of a man? Only a decrepit, fascist.
If you want to discuss theology, then take this to another thread
Best you ask persmission from "the Boss" as it was he who first posted about this.
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
Got it?
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Satyr wrote:
Stephen Pinker said this about selfishness and greed:
Even if we were born with ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior.
That is because a human mind is a complex system, with many parts and some can inhibit others. Even if we did have impulses towards selfishness and greed, that is not the only thing in the skull, there are other parts of the mind that can counter act them.
Hogwash...my dear.
All creatures are selfish in that they act on the predispositions and inclinations of self.
There is no act which does not impose itself upon another and which does not result in a desirable return.
There is always an intended, even if not known, return for every action and nothing we does not have an impact on another.
Stephen Pinker said this about selfishness and greed:
Even if we were born with ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior.
That is because a human mind is a complex system, with many parts and some can inhibit others. Even if we did have impulses towards selfishness and greed, that is not the only thing in the skull, there are other parts of the mind that can counter act them.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Nobility does no demand selflessness, my dear.
Altruism is not a synonym for nobility.
To be noble might be to be magnanimous and generous but it also means being totally in control of self and dependent upon self.
That you, and your ilk, equate selfishness with negative human characteristics shows what a good job brainwashing and social engineering has done.
In fact tot be selfish leads to not wanting to soil one's self and one's family.
Altruism is not a synonym for nobility.
To be noble might be to be magnanimous and generous but it also means being totally in control of self and dependent upon self.
That you, and your ilk, equate selfishness with negative human characteristics shows what a good job brainwashing and social engineering has done.
In fact tot be selfish leads to not wanting to soil one's self and one's family.
Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Sheltering and the recycling culture.
In times of austerity the mind exhibits more caution in its choices.
When the potential costs/risks are high, as they are in natural environments, the organisms behave in more careful ways.
In current human systems where stupidity is protected from itself, survival and freedom is guaranteed as a theoretical "right", the result is a growing state of entitlement and expandability.
It is because the human environments produce a surplus of food that food becomes trivialized as a hedonistic escape.
It is because modern human environments offer multitudes of technological gadgetry that it all becomes recyclable and must be replaced every few years.
And in the area of human sexuality it is because of the technological supports and system protections that lead to a trivialization of human relationship, turning them recyclable and shallow.
It is because the child is raised to feel indestructible under a social; umbrella that it grows to be a dumb, fuck full of grand expectations and a fearlessness born of inexperience with reality.
Fear is a regulating emotion and the basis for all other emotions.
Relationships have become like purchases.
One partakes and discards only to purchase a new one.
the cost is negligible and mostly based no primordial instincts that have yet to be weeded out of the human genome.
The destruction of the family, the abandonment of children to institutional forces, the degradation of interpersonal relationships where they now turn into hedonistic escapes are all byproducts of modernity.
Most, douchebags, choose to focus on the "benefits", but never consider the price.
That sex is easy, in our time, yet has become un-fulfilling, shallow and trivial, is directly linked to technologies that inhibit the cautionary possibility of pregnancy, and a system that protects imbeciles from "wrong" choices based on romantic idealism and fantasies totally detached from reality.
People change sexual partners or experiment with the same casualness that they display when shopping for food.
The end result is a degradation of the human spirit and human dignity and human responsibility.
All remain infantile, under the protective embrace of a system that milks them by offering them, like with cows, a fenced in enclosure and a path they must follow without question.
Such cows must feel pride in their production of milk.
In times of austerity the mind exhibits more caution in its choices.
When the potential costs/risks are high, as they are in natural environments, the organisms behave in more careful ways.
In current human systems where stupidity is protected from itself, survival and freedom is guaranteed as a theoretical "right", the result is a growing state of entitlement and expandability.
It is because the human environments produce a surplus of food that food becomes trivialized as a hedonistic escape.
It is because modern human environments offer multitudes of technological gadgetry that it all becomes recyclable and must be replaced every few years.
And in the area of human sexuality it is because of the technological supports and system protections that lead to a trivialization of human relationship, turning them recyclable and shallow.
It is because the child is raised to feel indestructible under a social; umbrella that it grows to be a dumb, fuck full of grand expectations and a fearlessness born of inexperience with reality.
Fear is a regulating emotion and the basis for all other emotions.
Relationships have become like purchases.
One partakes and discards only to purchase a new one.
the cost is negligible and mostly based no primordial instincts that have yet to be weeded out of the human genome.
The destruction of the family, the abandonment of children to institutional forces, the degradation of interpersonal relationships where they now turn into hedonistic escapes are all byproducts of modernity.
Most, douchebags, choose to focus on the "benefits", but never consider the price.
That sex is easy, in our time, yet has become un-fulfilling, shallow and trivial, is directly linked to technologies that inhibit the cautionary possibility of pregnancy, and a system that protects imbeciles from "wrong" choices based on romantic idealism and fantasies totally detached from reality.
People change sexual partners or experiment with the same casualness that they display when shopping for food.
The end result is a degradation of the human spirit and human dignity and human responsibility.
All remain infantile, under the protective embrace of a system that milks them by offering them, like with cows, a fenced in enclosure and a path they must follow without question.
Such cows must feel pride in their production of milk.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Creativity and Creation
All creativity is based on need.
It is need, desire, want, which forces the mind, evolved to satisfy the organism's needs, to sample the world and with this sampling to innovate from the given.
There is no uniqueness, for all is based no what is already present.
The mind uses first-hand perceptions (experience) and second-hand perceptions (knowledge) to combine and to innovate so as to satisfy a need.
There is no creative act which is not based on this lack, which the mind senses as need.
Even if it is the need for stimulation to alleviate boredom or to express self, there is always a need, a lack, present in the organism forcing it to act.
This makes the notion of a Creator God nothing more than a self-contradicting absurdity.
Free-Will
This concept is also based on a self-contradiction.
To be free, in any complete state, is to be independent.
To Will is to be in need, to desire, to want. I will what I do not posses or what I hope for or what I need.
Therefore, to have a free-will is nonsensical.
Furthermore, what one wills is always based no the determining, immutable, past.
I will what I lack and I lack what my past has denied me.
The correct interpretation of the term Will is this:
Will is a the focus of an organism's aggregate energies.
One directs one's self by focusing these energies upon an object/objective.
Since all existence is action and (inter)action no willing is ever without conflict or (inter)activity.
Therefore the concept of will can be associated with a steadfastness towards the object/objective despite the intervening distracting (inter)actions.
The attainment of the object/objective is more or less probable depending on its attachment to reality. If one wills to be immortal this is less probable than willing to grasp and eat an apple.
Therefore the success of the Will is based no the mind's projection of possibility, and the evaluation of probabilities.
The more detached from the world (sensual reality) a mind is all the more its projections become fantastic, other-worldly, supernatural.
The strength of the will fluctuates in time, as all is in flux, and the energies at its disposal are based on the mind's capacity to focus and to direct its own energies: control.
Therefore it is possible for a mind with less energies at its disposal to overpower a mind with more energies at its disposal.
The Will is never free because it is, itself, an expression of lack.
To be absolute is to make willing unnecessary as a God would be all things at all times simultaneously.
Ergo, the Will is, like with everything else, more or less free, in comparison with an other's.
The more free the mind is the less active it is, and so the less it Wills.
Activity is a symptom of lack, an absence which the mind interprets as need/desire/want.
All creativity is based on need.
It is need, desire, want, which forces the mind, evolved to satisfy the organism's needs, to sample the world and with this sampling to innovate from the given.
There is no uniqueness, for all is based no what is already present.
The mind uses first-hand perceptions (experience) and second-hand perceptions (knowledge) to combine and to innovate so as to satisfy a need.
There is no creative act which is not based on this lack, which the mind senses as need.
Even if it is the need for stimulation to alleviate boredom or to express self, there is always a need, a lack, present in the organism forcing it to act.
This makes the notion of a Creator God nothing more than a self-contradicting absurdity.
Free-Will
This concept is also based on a self-contradiction.
To be free, in any complete state, is to be independent.
To Will is to be in need, to desire, to want. I will what I do not posses or what I hope for or what I need.
Therefore, to have a free-will is nonsensical.
Furthermore, what one wills is always based no the determining, immutable, past.
I will what I lack and I lack what my past has denied me.
The correct interpretation of the term Will is this:
Will is a the focus of an organism's aggregate energies.
One directs one's self by focusing these energies upon an object/objective.
Since all existence is action and (inter)action no willing is ever without conflict or (inter)activity.
Therefore the concept of will can be associated with a steadfastness towards the object/objective despite the intervening distracting (inter)actions.
The attainment of the object/objective is more or less probable depending on its attachment to reality. If one wills to be immortal this is less probable than willing to grasp and eat an apple.
Therefore the success of the Will is based no the mind's projection of possibility, and the evaluation of probabilities.
The more detached from the world (sensual reality) a mind is all the more its projections become fantastic, other-worldly, supernatural.
The strength of the will fluctuates in time, as all is in flux, and the energies at its disposal are based on the mind's capacity to focus and to direct its own energies: control.
Therefore it is possible for a mind with less energies at its disposal to overpower a mind with more energies at its disposal.
The Will is never free because it is, itself, an expression of lack.
To be absolute is to make willing unnecessary as a God would be all things at all times simultaneously.
Ergo, the Will is, like with everything else, more or less free, in comparison with an other's.
The more free the mind is the less active it is, and so the less it Wills.
Activity is a symptom of lack, an absence which the mind interprets as need/desire/want.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Racial differences in relation to poverty levels.
Still Holding on to his LifeJacket
Richard Lynn
Dysgenics
The factor of intelligence and how awareness results not only in heightened anxiety rates but also a higher reluctance to submit to instinct and intuition and faith, should not be dismissed as too small to matter.
People with higher I.Q.s consistently reproduce at lower rates and those with low I.Q. at higher rates, leading to a lowering of the average I.Q. rates throughout the gene pool.
If we add to this the effect of race mixing where the median between the parent's I.Q. is inherited by the child, results in a general decline of intelligence.
Here the promiscuity rates and the importance sex plays within different racial categories is not outside the ability of anybody to study first-hand. How intelligence leads to lower interest in casual sex or a more cautious approach to it, is easily understood by even those that lack the intelligence to relate.
We may consider this as a gradual deterioration of the original racial divergences....just as one would expect if one mixed dog breeds to produce hybrids (mutts).
The general attributed of the dog would decrease not increase.
The idea that this decrease would be offset by the continuous rise in I.Q. scores is in error.
First, it presumes that nature would select for intelligence though intelligence is more costly and may even be detrimental to reproduction.
Secondly it presumes that an environment that nurtures intelligence is present, which is presumptuous given the current sheltering in the west which inhibits growth by placing individuals in safe, easy, predictable circumstances.
Still Holding on to his LifeJacket
Richard Lynn
Dysgenics
The factor of intelligence and how awareness results not only in heightened anxiety rates but also a higher reluctance to submit to instinct and intuition and faith, should not be dismissed as too small to matter.
People with higher I.Q.s consistently reproduce at lower rates and those with low I.Q. at higher rates, leading to a lowering of the average I.Q. rates throughout the gene pool.
If we add to this the effect of race mixing where the median between the parent's I.Q. is inherited by the child, results in a general decline of intelligence.
Here the promiscuity rates and the importance sex plays within different racial categories is not outside the ability of anybody to study first-hand. How intelligence leads to lower interest in casual sex or a more cautious approach to it, is easily understood by even those that lack the intelligence to relate.
We may consider this as a gradual deterioration of the original racial divergences....just as one would expect if one mixed dog breeds to produce hybrids (mutts).
The general attributed of the dog would decrease not increase.
The idea that this decrease would be offset by the continuous rise in I.Q. scores is in error.
First, it presumes that nature would select for intelligence though intelligence is more costly and may even be detrimental to reproduction.
Secondly it presumes that an environment that nurtures intelligence is present, which is presumptuous given the current sheltering in the west which inhibits growth by placing individuals in safe, easy, predictable circumstances.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Satyr wrote:
I implied society may see selfishness as negative, but to be selfish can also be a positive trait as it is imperative to develop to one's full realisation. A man is called selfish (by society) if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; the primary (innate and natural) aim of a man/woman's life should be self-development and this is the way in which everyone should live, but we don't always enjoy that luxury.
"Even if we were born with ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior". I interpret this, "ignoble", in this sentence to mean base and base can also be interpreted as selfish.
Selfish can be negative and positive. It is not always the favorable outcome to be selfish and because of this the human mind is a complex system and many parts can inhibit others and for a reason. Which in the case of family, a good example, one sacrifices one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of family members. I see that as self sacrifice, which means we are at odds with each other's interpretation of this particular example.
Is it selfish/not selfish to think for oneself? Some may vehmently say yes, some may say no.
May I have an example of the above sentence. "In fact to be selfish........."That you, and your ilk, equate selfishness with negative human characteristics shows what a good job brainwashing and social engineering has done.
In fact tot be selfish leads to not wanting to soil one's self and one's family.
I implied society may see selfishness as negative, but to be selfish can also be a positive trait as it is imperative to develop to one's full realisation. A man is called selfish (by society) if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; the primary (innate and natural) aim of a man/woman's life should be self-development and this is the way in which everyone should live, but we don't always enjoy that luxury.
"Even if we were born with ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior". I interpret this, "ignoble", in this sentence to mean base and base can also be interpreted as selfish.
Selfish can be negative and positive. It is not always the favorable outcome to be selfish and because of this the human mind is a complex system and many parts can inhibit others and for a reason. Which in the case of family, a good example, one sacrifices one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of family members. I see that as self sacrifice, which means we are at odds with each other's interpretation of this particular example.
Is it selfish/not selfish to think for oneself? Some may vehmently say yes, some may say no.
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
A brilliant exposition as to how Platonism merged with Judaism to form Christianity.Lampert, Laurence wrote:Language necessarily misleads, collecting particulars that are always parts of processes into classes of relative fixity named by words of varying generality that human propensity reifies into something like the ideas. Platonism as a doctrine pictures – and takes advantage of – the human propensity to “platonize,” to treat as real the “ideas” that are an indispensable part of understanding and communicating. Platonism as a doctrine reifies basic experiences of the beautiful, just, and good, the opinions that arrange the world morally; it lends the world moral foundation while inviting the philosophically inclined to investigate it.
Because the doctrine of the ideas is true to the human propensity to generate seeming permanence, it is untrue to what Plato reports about Socrates’ singular experience; his turn to study human experience lingered momentarily over the ideas as the solution to a philosophical problem but led him eventually to discover the desire-generated character of the beautiful and the good. Platonism as a doctrine does what human experience generally does: sever those desire-generated products from the activity that produced them. Platonism mirrors in theory the natural human propensity to detach the product from the process, occluding and denying its product-character. Platonism as a doctrine gives this natural propensity to “platonize” the gift of a theory plus arguments and images to secure it against doubts; it gives Glaucon a “philosophy” of the sort to which he naturally inclines, a safe one that secures the beautiful, just, and good against doubts raised by philosophizing. {How Philosophy became Socratic}
Socrates reports, through Plato, what one Zalmoxis taught him.
Monotheism enters the scene as a necessary step towards preventing internal strife.
The singular, simplistic, generalized, enters as a way of preventing those who cannot be philosophers from being led astray by the multiplicity and the choices it offers.
Socrates considers some truths to be too dangerous for the many and a responsibility of the few, who can think, to give them what they require to live in a stable city.
Since then we've been living in a Platonic western world, where the complex is reified into words expressing ambiguous concepts the many can grasp in a way that satisfies their simpler needs. .
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution
Learn to know thyself! He who has understood himself has understood God
(The Prophet Muhammad ) from the Quran.
The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me? ... It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart.
(Leo Tolstoy, 1879)
For God is thought to be among the causes for all things and to be a kind of principle ... (Aristotle)
Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. ... Hence it distinctly follows that God is one alone, ... in the nature of things only one substance can be granted, and that is absolutely infinite. ... extended substance is one of the infinite attributes of God ... God and all the attributes of God are eternal. (Spinoza, 1673)
Nature is none other than God in things... Animals and plants are living effects of Nature; Whence all of God is in all things. ... All things are in the Universe, and the universe is in all things: we in it, and it in us; in this way everything concurs in a perfect unity. ... Before anything else the One must exist eternally; from his power derives everything that always is or will ever be. (Giordano Bruno, 1585)
God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)
"A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ‘basic building blocks’, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole." (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, On Quantum Theory)
(The Prophet Muhammad ) from the Quran.
The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me? ... It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart.
(Leo Tolstoy, 1879)
For God is thought to be among the causes for all things and to be a kind of principle ... (Aristotle)
Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. ... Hence it distinctly follows that God is one alone, ... in the nature of things only one substance can be granted, and that is absolutely infinite. ... extended substance is one of the infinite attributes of God ... God and all the attributes of God are eternal. (Spinoza, 1673)
Nature is none other than God in things... Animals and plants are living effects of Nature; Whence all of God is in all things. ... All things are in the Universe, and the universe is in all things: we in it, and it in us; in this way everything concurs in a perfect unity. ... Before anything else the One must exist eternally; from his power derives everything that always is or will ever be. (Giordano Bruno, 1585)
God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)
"A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ‘basic building blocks’, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole." (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, On Quantum Theory)