Mary said:
The levels are but a representation of reality. Given a
choice, would you prefer to access the representation or
the thing represented?
Matt:
This is what I would call a fake choice, between a
representation and a thing-in-itself. If that were a real
choice, who wouldn't rather have the thing itself? But
philosophy since Descartes and Locke, two people largely
responsible for imposing the "representational mind"
between us and reality (though Kant locked it all into
place), hasn't been able to say practically what it means
to get to the thing-in-itself.
So, given a choice, I punch the dilemma between the
horns, throw sand in its eyes, and scurry out of the arena.
Marsha said:
I love the opposite-from-non-x , such as
opposite-from-non-justice or opposite-from-non-copper, or
opposite-from-non-zebra, or even opposite-from-non-father,
as a representation of a pattern. So many attributes of
'thingness' seem to disappear with its use. Maybe it may be
useful as a model.
Matt:
Aye, it's a good way to get the hang of potentially infinite
number of things one can say about any particular "thing,"
which leads one to think there is no essence to that thing,
just a multiplicity of ways of looking at all dependent on
what you want it for.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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
