Hi Adrie --
Agree on sourdre, Ham. source(en) =source in French, equal meaning, but pronounced in a different way. derived from surgere (latin) but agree on to spring forth....."surgere". This matches. [snip] "What are things in themselves Clarice,......what are things in their nature?" These memory events are only triggering my rememberance , if i read a good rhetoric. As you did some re-editing , (thx) i will slightly alter one of yours. "Quote Ham, " "These are only speculations on my part, of course, but they seem to make sense of the empirical fact that life is an individual experience, despite the need for a primary source to support it." "Adrie" Empirical knowledge/acceptance/protokol that life is an individual experience, despite the Fact and the need for a primary source to produce and support it. This counts and is about valid for human life. Different in the animal kingdom, for example, intermediares between animals and plants. -corals, ...".primary source to produce and support it", but deviating away on individual expierience, as corals are colonys of individuals, whereby what we see is is only the representation of a group [of] individuals, leaving out "individual experience. Or take a man of war for example.... "What are things in themselves, Clarice?"
I have no problem with your "translation", but I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make. I agree that organic species that lack cerebral faculties seem to behave as colonies, hives, or "living masses" without a sense of individuality. I happen to believe that, apart from the survival instinct of non-primates and lower level organisms, man is unique in possessing a sense of Value.
What this has to do with "things in themselves" eludes me. Are you saying that animals are more like "objects" than are human beings? (But, of course, human beings are objects of experience to us, too.) Incidentally, just who is Clarice -- a female version of Kant? -- and where does this quote come from?
Ps, after retracting some of the earlier older postings, i took a sneak peak, a snapshot on some conflicting Joe/ham matters, i chose not too take side.
I'm flattered that you would review my earlier posts. (I do this every once in awhile to see if I've made any progress ;-). Joe Maurer has a keen mind and has come up with some perceptive ideas, despite his obsession with numbers and mathematics (an SOM preoccupation). At one time I thought he would be my first "convert" to Essentialism, but it appears he's more interested in working out his own philosophy.
Not sure about you, though, Adrie. I'll know when we reach a point of disagreement. It's bound to come before long.
Thanks for the interest you've shown thus far. Essentially yours, Ham 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/md/archives.html
