Its screamingly obvious where igm is coming from. He is pointing out that anything defined as permanent is axiomatically "unchanging".
It most assuredly is not “screamingly obvious” where igm is coming from…nor where you are coming from, Fresco. You guys are so wedded to your belief system that you think actually explaining your position is not worth while…it is, to you folk, something that simply has to be accepted.
I don’t think is should just be accepted…and I think anyone with any sense of balance would not either.
He also implies the concept of "permanence" is either useless or religious when related to our use of the word "reality" because empirically we know that everything is in a state of flux. What we actually/contextually mean by "permanence" is relative persistence with respect to human functionality.
You and he have a tendency to characterize comments that casts any doubt on the tenets of your belief system as “useless” or inconsequential. That tendency does not actually make them useless or inconsequential. Most of them are no less useless or inconsequential than much of the stuff you pedal all the time.
The notion of “permanence” has a meaning within the context of permanent flux…and that “meaning” does not HAVE to be relative with respect to human functionality. You present that argument as fact…in a gratuitous, self-serving way. It isn’t necessarily so. I am not saying it is NOT so…but that it does not follow from any logical progression. Your assertion that it is so…is for the convenience of your arguments.
And the argument which you try every time of a "Frank" sitting outside "everything" and stating it is "permanently changing", and that changing "may be the true nature of reality" is A GOD'S EYE VIEW !.
Where have I EVER asserted that…let alone use it every time???
Normally you do not build straw men so easily deconstructed, Fresco. Are you feeling poorly today?
It adds nothing to arguments about "facts" and exposes the paucity of your so-called agnosticism and the ridiculous nature of calling dissenters from your views, "religious".
I’ve not called you “religious”…I have suggested that you are enthralled with a belief system. Some belief systems are not religious…strong atheism, for instance.
C’mon. If you cannot do better than this when speaking candidly and unpretentiously, perhaps you’d better go back to that silly techno-babble you usually offer. At least there it is obviously you really are not saying anything.