Ron,
If you think reading of the monkey trap analogy is enough to verify it as a
fact drawn from experience, we are far from agreement. The monkey trap analogy
is a supposed explanation of value rigidity. I accept it hypothetically as an
apt explanation.
By the way, here is the
Hi Joe,
I think of most of your posts as a Rorschach test. It's sometimes fun to
respond, but mostly I don't understand your point. We are suspended in
language, and your posts are suspended in your particular idiosyncrasies.
Marsha
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Joseph Maurer
And?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:30 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ron,
If you think reading of the monkey trap analogy is enough to verify it as a
fact drawn from experience, we are far from agreement. The monkey trap
analogy is a supposed explanation of value
Just for clarification, Ron. As said, I have no need for you to adopt my view.
On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
And?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:30 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ron,
If you think the reading of the monkey
Hi MarshaV and all,
I suppose idiosyncrasies are discernable.
For the discernment of reality by an individual sentient DQ/SQ is a proper
format. I experience the indefinable.
How is that possible?
SOM based in definition is inadequate to describe social indefinable
reality. There is no
