[MD] the subjective

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     I'm glad this is cleared up, about the Ron "mutually exclusive" stuff, for at least one confusion has been provided clarity.  Could have used that over 2 years ago, but I guess your learning something.  Seriously, this issue alone makes you more understandable 10 fold.  A lot of what I've argued about with you was your unknowingness on this pretty crucial topic.  
     Another drop by, gotta go.

woods,
SA 


--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] the subjective
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 6:07 AM
> Hi Platt -- 
> 
> > Please excuse me for not being able to fully
> understand
> > your reply. I have trouble following the meanings of
> "sensibility,"
> > "absoluteness," and then the combination
> "absolute sensibility."
> > Be that as it may, I take it your answer is,
> "Yes. Since it
> > includes sensibility it can know itself. Further, it
> was known
> > only to itself until it created sensible agents. Now
> we agents
> > can know it primarily through aesthetic
> experience."
> >
> > Is this interpretation anywhere near your view?
> 
> Yes, and your difficulty with these terms demonstrates the
> limitations of
> language in expressing abstract concepts.  Trying to come
> up with the best 
> term is a constant challenge for me.  For example, Ron has
> now persuaded me 
> that the term "mutually exclusive" as applied to
> a dichotomy means that 
> either contingency can stand alone.  Further research
> indicates that the 
> proper term for the relationship of Being and Awareness (as
> I define it) is 
> "dichotomy of complementarity."
> 
> Keep in mind that any essential attribute is absolute in
> Essence.  There are 
> no divisions, before/afters, or others in Essence.  So that
> "absolute 
> sensibility", like "absolute 'is-ness',
> is one and the same as absolute 
> Essence.
> 
> Sorry I was not as succinct in answering your second
> question.  Part of the 
> problem is not knowing what lies behind the words of the
> question.  I have 
> to ask myself, am I giving him precisely what he wants to
> know?
> 
> But I'm pleased that you're keeping the book handy
> as a reference.  (I 
> should check it out more often to assure that I'm
> consistent in my 
> explanations.)
> 
> Thanks, Platt
> 
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/