Ham, Mark, John, guys, I'm kindof tired at the moment so I am not very anxious about starting a new conversation.
I just wanted to say, Ham, that I think this was by far the clearest explanation I have seen you give of essentialism. Since I am not looking to get into it at the moment, let me just comment in re: > [Ham] Can we agree on the interpretation of Existence vis-a-vis Essence that > I've > outlined above? If so, then I'll be more comfortable providing a > rationale > that you can critique and hopefully add to. (Of course, this is the > stage > at which I managed to discourage John and Tim.) [Tim] Ham, I would answer 'yes, I think so', but tell you that I would mentally replace 'essence' with 'existent-enough' (in your transcendent-ish way) whenever I read it. I'll probably be watching. if any of you ever really want me to jump in, just ask. of course I'll feel free to jump in when I please too. Tim -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service 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
