Yes, please. I'm not a fan of defining terms before using them, because demanding such is usually a sign of adversarial strawmanning. But Nick's use of privilege combined with claiming he's addressed scope/extent is baffling. So even if it can't be rigidly denoted, at least swap in and out some other words.
Some alternates might be: private, immanent, imminent, encapsulated, opaque, near, personal, idiosyncratic, bounded, priority, closed, contained, sovereign, subjective, atomized, individuated, particulate, granular, ... There are lots of words out there. Don't be stingy. On November 8, 2021 12:49:04 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: >Please define "privilege". > >-----Original Message----- >From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:28 PM >To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > >Gosh, Glen, > >I do hate the me that you describe. What an otiose boring old fart! > >When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are >coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is >that a flattening? > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
