[Jos]
> > That said, I'm increasingly convinced that
> "source" or "essence"
> > are better terms than DQ, as they attribute no
> particular assumptions
> > to "it" whatever it is.
[Ham]
> Hooray! I commend you for your understanding.
> I think what Mr. Perella fails to comprehend is the
> concept of transcendency. He regards the "source"
of a river
> as the estuaries that
> feed it, or the "essence" of a pine tree as the seed
> from which it sprouts.
> This is an ontology based on the Aristotelian notion
> that everything has its own "essence".
Notice Ham, Jos said essence comes with NO
ASSUMPTIONS to 'it' whatever 'it' is. And yet, I'm
assuming something a logical person assumed over 2000
years ago that set the stage for what is called
western philosophy. It is the NO ASSUMPTIONS that Jos
proclaims Essence to be BETTER than MoQ. Isn't what I
said I very easy assumption to make about this essence
stuff?
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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/
