SA: Yes, "functions as reality", but as mentioned,
which you probably keep in mind, what might be "common
sense" to one, is bogus to another, at times. This is
where culture steps in, too. Some biological patterns
would seem "common sense" on a broader scale, but at
times, as we know, culture can override biological
values.
Yet, this "common sense" is still tied in with
what you mentioned as "projecting". Thus, "common
sense" and "projecting" are something that occurs
"between", in "combination", and "connection" with
analogies and non-analogies. What do you think?
Ron prev:
> This is where the anthropomorphic enters the
> picture.
SA: I would agree to an extent. I see the
combination, and what is being projected as both
anthropomorphic and naturomorphic (if such a word, but
this meaning needs a label). Thus, anthronatromorphic
or something?
Ron:
That's just the conundrum; we have nothing to check against.
What is reality less our view of it? How do we know how
Close it is? I tend to err on the side of human-centricity
Because it frees DQ from any anthropomorphism. Thus free of any
Definition or description except what we place on it.
This to me strikes more precisely to the main event.
Thanks for elevating this dialog several notches with your un-wavering
Patience.
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/
