In answer to Saul. To me ,the essence of the human form is one thank hasB been recognized on first glance from time immemorial. Tall / fat / thin / short / all / Races / old / young / even as a skeletonb& yet now alikeb& like snow flakes.
________________________________ From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: Re: is list dead? I feel that the human form remains a human form reguardless how distorted it is expressed,as long as the essence is maintain in the expression. armando baeza ________________________________ From: Slostrow2 <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:15 PM Subject: Re: is list dead? What is the essential difference btwn a boulder and a pebble, btwn a humane and a primate Sent from my iPhone Please excuse grammar and spelling errors Expect everything - fear nothing - or did I get that backwards Saul ostrow 646 528 8537 On Jul 27, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Tom McCormack <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote: > >> Also: My name and address differentiate me from anyone else in the world. >> Would you call them my "essence"? > > Saul then advanced his description of his notion of 'essence' from "the > essence of something being the minimal >> >> conditions that allow us to distinguish it from another thing" to > >> "the essence of something being the minimal >> conditions that allow us to distinguish it from another thing (of a >> different kind or order)." > > But Saul also wrote: >> >> If that combination is the most significant difference we might identify >> then I would say yes > > This is troublesome because the whole game of coming up with this stipulative > definition of 'essence' now rides on a person's notion of "significant". I see > a circle trembling on the horizon: > >> - though I do not think there is any essential >> difference between one human and another - though there may be between the >> quality of their life - this is why I chose a phenomenal rather than a >> linguistic criteria - i.e. the essence of something being the minimal >> conditions that allow us to distinguish it from another thing (of a >> different kind or order) - > > An "essential difference" is needed to make something an essence. And how do > we determine if something is "essential"? We see if it is "significant". And > how do we determine if something is "significant"? Well, it's significant if > it means something is of a "different kind or order". And how do we determine > that? Well, it's of a different kind or order if it makes for a different > essence. Oy.
