Not just the sun and the moon - everything. You know, God.

Let's return to the mother and her son example. At what point are they separate beings, and on what basis do you make this separation?

"Not just the sun and the moon - everything. You know, God."
Actually, "worship" is a meaningless concept, eh?

At least, in the cosmos-etc. that you're espousing. Thucy.

True that. Being is itself worship. All things of course testify to this, as you Christians know

"Being is itself worship."
Um, no. It may be glorifying to God, but it lacks the spiritual intention necessary for worship.

Well, I've got to go, but I'll leave you with this thought:

All distinctions you make are relative. None of them are absolute. You will probably disagree, and say, but look at my math textbook. I say, your math textbook is written by a person, with a relative perspective. The poles of the sphere are distinct? Not when you're infinitely far away. There, they form a single point.

Good night

And how is it arbitrary to say that a brick is distinct from a building? Its physical extension is obviously different. Its physical composition is different. Its physical location overlaps perhaps but is nonetheless not the same. The same can be said of a mother and a child. I fail to see how these distinctions are meaningless.

"There, they form a single point."
Yes, but this presupposes that perception and reality are causally linked in the direction of the first being causally prior to the second. I reject this and say rather that the reverse is actually the correct direction.

And that reversal of direction only obtains successfully on a good day. :)

Sometimes the link is severed completely and the two have no relation to each other whatsoever!

Thucy,

"All distinctions you make are relative. None of them are absolute. You will probably disagree, and say, but look at my math textbook. I say, your math textbook is written by a person, with a relative perspective. The poles of the sphere are distinct? Not when you're infinitely far away. There, they form a single point."

This is a complicated claim. It's certainly not straightforwardly true (though they would appear to form a single point, anyway). In any event, you're once again not being clear in your reasoning -- just waving your hands around and making big sweeping assertions and skipping the reasoning. I'm sure you'd try to argue that argument is just a little human construct that doesn't bear on the world. But you can't have it both ways. If you're trying to argue -- and you are -- you have to actually do it well, not just assert.