[MD] sourdre Ham)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Adrie --


> Agree on sourdre, Ham.
>
> source(en) =source in French, equal meaning, but pronounced
> in a different way. derived from surgere (latin) but agree on
> to spring forth....."surgere". This matches.
> [snip]
> "What are things in themselves Clarice,......what are things
> in their nature?"  These memory events are only triggering my
> rememberance , if i read a good rhetoric.
>
> As you did some re-editing , (thx) i will slightly alter one of yours.
>
> "Quote Ham, "
> "These are only speculations on my part, of course,
> but they seem to make sense of the empirical fact that life
> is an individual experience, despite the need for a
> primary source to support it."
>
> "Adrie"
> Empirical knowledge/acceptance/protokol that life is
> an individual experience, despite the Fact and the need
> for a primary source to produce and support it.
> This counts and is about valid for human life.
>
> Different in the animal kingdom, for example, intermediares
> between animals and plants. -corals, ...".primary source to
> produce and support it", but deviating away on individual
> expierience, as corals are colonys of individuals, whereby
> what we see is is only the representation of a group [of]
> individuals, leaving out "individual experience.
> Or take a man of war for example....
>
> "What are things in themselves, Clarice?"

I have no problem with your "translation", but I'm not clear on the point 
you're trying to make.  I agree that organic species that lack cerebral 
faculties seem to behave as colonies, hives, or "living masses" without a 
sense of individuality.  I happen to believe that, apart from the survival 
instinct of non-primates and lower level organisms, man is unique in 
possessing a sense of Value.

What this has to do with "things in themselves" eludes me.  Are you saying 
that animals are more like "objects" than are human beings?  (But, of 
course, human beings are objects of experience to us, too.)  Incidentally, 
just who is Clarice -- a female version of Kant? -- and where does this 
quote come from?

> Ps, after retracting some of the earlier older postings,
> i took a sneak peak, a snapshot on some conflicting
> Joe/ham matters, i chose not too take side.

I'm flattered that you would review my earlier posts.  (I do this every once 
in awhile to see if I've made any progress ;-).  Joe Maurer has a keen mind 
and has come up with some perceptive ideas, despite his obsession with 
numbers and mathematics (an SOM preoccupation).  At one time I thought he 
would be my first "convert" to Essentialism, but it appears he's more 
interested in working out his own philosophy.

Not sure about you, though, Adrie.  I'll know when we reach a point of 
disagreement.  It's bound to come before long.

Thanks for the interest you've shown thus far.

Essentially yours,
Ham