I am really starting to sound real barbaric....pardon me..for this .. On Dec 6, 4:33 pm, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh Ok is this the haecceitists bright than pale...like the video and song.. > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a502RejLz8s > > OPpss, as nice as that is, perhaps not the same guy... > > > On Dec 5, 9:28 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Gehen Sie für die phonetische Strategie sounds better to the 'English > > > Ear'. The ultimate haecceitists were the ethnomethodologists, so > > > crudely indoctrinated they though Garfinkel invented them. He was > > > rude to my mate and his dog, so I have aversion to the term. > > > > On 6 Dec, 00:56, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "...Now you know ... :-) ..." - fran > > > > > Welcome to the dark side of anarchy fran!!! ;-) > > > > > On Dec 5, 12:13 pm, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Playing with labels, Neil, if pushed to it, I might be inclined to > > > > > assign myself to the school of semi-haecceitists, as opposed to full- > > > > > blown haecceitists, anti-haecceitists, or moderate anti-haecceitists. > > > > > Of course, this is because, as an Irishman, I feel a certain affinity > > > > > with Duns Scotus (who may have been Irish and who, some claim, used > > to > > > > > be on the old Irish five pound note [although this was more likely > > > > > Scotus Eriugena]), and also because we could immediately put the > > split > > > > > as the first item on the agenda of the annual convention of > > > > > haecceitists, in good Irish political tradition! > > > > > > Semi-haecceitist, because I would, on the one hand reject anti- > > > > > haecceitism by acknowledging that the uniqueness of a given > > individual > > > > > is not reducible to the set of qualities it exemplifies; on the other > > > > > hand I would not accept the standard haecceitist position that > > > > > thisnesses are metaphysically primitive and unanalysable, rather that > > > > > they are deeply (perhaps infinitely) analysable in their richness - > > > > > but not, because of this very richness, comprehensively analysable. > > > > > Which would bring us back to Kantian postulations, involving such > > > > > ideas as, "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without > > > > > concepts are blind," and the philosophical difficulties of going > > > > > beyond phenomenological horizons, etc. > > > > > > Which leads me to remember favourably anew my decision not to pursue > > > > > an academic career in philosophy and a renewed sympathy for Marx's > > > > > comment about the philosophers only interpreting the world, the point > > > > > being to change it. > > > > > > Now you know ... :-) > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 5 Dez., 16:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Haecceities Orn, lets confuse them with haecceities.- Hide quoted > > text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
