Ontologies don't work...
John Timothy Hall
...emistomologies might.
voidtech
--
Susan R Murray
work... by "Zeno"@worldnet.att.net
> Your spell checker certainly doesn't work.
Them's fightin' words, boy!
You must have a real keen mind to be able to catch spelling errors like
that. Your skilful and witty retort clearly demonstrates your
intellectual superiority. The true sign of a great mind is flawless
spelling on usenet posts. Why! You even changed the subject line to
reflect your feelings for your opponent. You are so clever. I can't get
over it.
Sweetheart, please accept that those of us who have bothered to respond
to you at all apparently don't care about your revolution in philosophy.
I would like to know what philosophers you've read and why you feel that
the good old cannon of dead white males (well there are a few exceptions
but that's another thread) ought to be ignored?
PS. I like how you use those two-dollar words, keep it up.
--
"All words that are not poetry will be stricken from the records of
history. All words that are poetry and carry any scraps of truth will be
reread to mean their opposite."
Zeno
"John Timothy Hall" <ed...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8u5j1r$dec$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> ...emistomologies might.
>
> voidtech
> --
>
>
Zeno
practice in this genre.
"Susan R Murray" <smur...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:0u1rSQC00...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.postmodern: 7-Nov-100 Re: Ontologies don't
> work... by "Zeno"@worldnet.att.net
> > Your spell checker certainly doesn't work.
>
>
Simon Best
>
> You're so adorable when you do ad hominem! I guess you have had a lot of
> practice in this genre.
Interestingly, so answer to the following question:
> "Susan R Murray" <smur...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:0u1rSQC00...@andrew.cmu.edu...
[...]
> > I would like to know what philosophers you've read and why you feel that
> > the good old cannon of dead white males (well there are a few exceptions
> > but that's another thread) ought to be ignored?
[...]
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Personal: bars...@earthling.net
Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that work?
Susan R Murray
work... by "Zeno"@worldnet.att.net
> practice in this genre.
Yeah, well you started it!
I'm not here to say that you argument is wrong. I saying it not worth my
time. It's boring, indulgent and unduly self-rightous. But mostly
boring. I've looked at this site for longer than I'd like to and I'm yet
to get that little chill I feel when someone finds a way of saying
something in a way that just might be closer to the truth.
Why not answer my questions? I'm a poet. I might be able to help you to
package your crap so it at least sounds like good philosophy.
Susan
James Whitehead
Zeno <martin...@worldnet.att.net> writes
If Samuel Johnson - an Englishman born in Litchfied established the
tyranny of correct spelling couldn't another Englishman born in
Warwickshire free humanity from such drudgery?
--
James Whitehead
John Timothy Hall
> Your spell checker certainly doesn't work.
>
> "John Timothy Hall" <ed...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8u5j1r$dec$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>
>>
>> voidtech
>> --
who needs a spell checker when they have you?
freudtech
--
Zeno
dear. It's my suspicion that since the argument is so large and needs
extended powers of concentration, that you, out of lack of stamina and
training, would rather dismiss it as "boring" than extend yourself and try
to learn new things.
You may go back to your short cute poems and indulge in your self perceived
powers of special artsy intuition.
"Susan R Murray" <smur...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Iu1svM200...@andrew.cmu.edu...
Zeno
"John Timothy Hall" <ed...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8u8n4b$8ms$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Zeno
questioned. You can learn from the errors of the past. Even prejudice can
be grist for the learning mill. One of the problems here, in the pomo
crowd, is that they are so paranoid about bias and prejudice, that they
create their own set of distortions without even knowing it! It's really
funny to witness.
"Simon Best" <bars...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3A078F0E...@earthling.net...
Susan R Murray
work... by "Zeno"@worldnet.att.net
> powers of special artsy intuition.
Well, at least I know that all of my powers are only illusions. (sigh)
Others are to proud to let this fearful possibility cross their mind.
Best of luck in you mission. I hope it manages, by some disaster even,
to end in discovery. I know all my missions have.
Susan
PS. A thank you to James Whitehead (are you related to Russell's
teacher?) for perusing this argument in a serious manner. I'll place my
bet on the whole thing going all circular and repetitive in a few days
but it should be fun to see if something meaningful manages to happen.
Zeno
are. You say you "know" that all of what you know is illusion. That's
quite a strong and curious truth statement! Couldn't one make the case that
you are dogmatic about your _certainty_ concerning your illusions? I'm
willing to be more charitable towards you Susan, and grant that you may
actually know a few truths here and there.
Actually, thinking critically and learning the argument at twow.net has been
one of the most extraordinary learning experiences in my philosophic life,
and in ways that you will probably never know. Your casual dismissal only
contributes to your intellectual impoverishment. Your unwavering schtick
has been tantamount to saying that you won't talk to anyone who doesn't have
black hair, simple because you have a stylistic fetish for black hair.
People who have blonde, red and other hair colors may have some very
interesting and thought provoking things to say too!
Be coo'.
"Susan R Murray" <smur...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:0u20rHC00...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.postmodern: 7-Nov-100 Re: Ontologies don't
> work... by "Zeno"@worldnet.att.net
> > You may go back to your short cute poems and indulge in your self
perceived
> > powers of special artsy intuition.
>
>
> Well, at least I know that all of my powers are only illusions. (sigh)
> Others are to proud to let this fearful possibility cross their mind.
>
> Best of luck in you mission. I hope it manages, by some disaster even,
> to end in discovery. I know all my missions have.
>
> Susan
>
> PS. A thank you to James Whitehead (are you related to Russell's
> teacher?) for perusing this argument in a serious manner. I'll place my
> bet on the whole thing going all circular and repetitive in a few days
> but it should be fun to see if something meaningful manages to happen.
>
>
>
>
James Whitehead
Zeno <martin...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Traditional philosophers shouldn't be ignored, but they should be
>questioned. You can learn from the errors of the past. Even prejudice can
>be grist for the learning mill. One of the problems here, in the pomo
>crowd, is that they are so paranoid about bias and prejudice, that they
>create their own set of distortions without even knowing it! It's really
>funny to witness.
Your only laughing at the penguins - but you should see us underwater!
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<smur...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>PS. A thank you to James Whitehead (are you related to Russell's
>teacher?) for perusing this argument in a serious manner. I'll place my
>bet on the whole thing going all circular and repetitive in a few days
>but it should be fun to see if something meaningful manages to happen.
my grandfather was a steelworker in the north of england! - and i doubt
any bookmaker would give you even odds of 100 to 1.
--
James Whitehead
Zeno
expression: the simple cute joys of masturbating with easy pseudo zen-like
non sequiturs and feeling really clever about it.
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RMlTFHA0...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
James Whitehead
Zeno <martin...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Mr. Whitehead's rhetoric perfectly epitomizes the allure of quasi-pomo
>expression: the simple cute joys of masturbating with easy pseudo zen-like
>non sequiturs and feeling really clever about it.
>
correct way to spell this please!) - i think trying to make people happy
a fairly worthy & harmless thing to do - rather than attempt tyranny
(this is a poke at your theory)-
next - "the quasi-pomo expression" in negating the negative makes it a
modernist expression?
As for the simple cute joys of masturbating - do you imply that
masturbation is somehow bad or wrong or - a sign of weakness?, yet as a
foundation for personal - and perhaps more importantly interpersonal
sexual pleasure its of great importance. We should, don't you think try
to understand the nature not only of our own orgasm but of our partners?
"The easy pseudo-zen like non sequiturs" - i'll have to look up non-
sequiturs - ah "The easy false zen like it does not follows"
Well what i meant by penguins is that people often laugh at them in zoos
- they seem on land silly creatures - but they are splendidly adapted to
an underwater environment where they feed. This is not zen like as its
allegorical. The modernist/absolutist (your self) laughing at the silly
looking relativists (me?) - but such relativists are better equipped
(perhaps) to survive in the post-modern era of drowned modernity.
Bye the way i have read more of the site - some jokes might help-
I did make some notes - you seem to go over the ground of existing
thought and theory which gets dull at times:
1. its scope is such that it accounts for everything -
metawise -pragmatically? adopting any refutation of theory as part of
the theory similar to- analysis - your mad if you don't see it and mad
if you do.
2. The basis of method - "the simplest explanation" has no foundation?
in fact the simple explanations are often wrong.
3. It fails to account for the subtly of the world -
it may say that this exists but can't describe it accurately
so is a best a partial view.
4. Partial views are prejudiced views by necessity.
5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible manages both -
though the jokes are hard to spot i know, Wittgenstein's tractatus -
which *only* explains philosophy has some good one liners... and of
course Nietzsche manages both - poetic jokes -!
6. A philosopher once told me that Irish navies would fight after pay
day for their wages - for the crack.
Maybe we could have a workshop - if you post bits - we could try to help
you edit the theory. Regarding Space - there you could use a quote from
the Harrison Song "We were talking about the space between us all" And
propose that "God is the world" and behold the coming of the Spaceman!
But I'm sure others in the NG could do better here than me. I think the
airport scene is a bad move - meeting strangers and taking philosophy
... it gives me the message "nutcase alert" or that some sado-
masochistic sex act in the 747's toilets might occur... but maybe some
readers would find that interesting. The diagrams and technical stuff
will only appeal to techies ... and they will annoyingly look up and
work out the propositions. An aphorism is much better. If you really
want to communicate your ideas then form should be important - maybe if
you used java scripts and made the whole thing a computer game! One
final thought Spaceomaterialism and ontological philosophy don't trip of
the tongue - we need to work on this one - how about calling it S&M
theory! Now if some others could write the 747 scene we are as they say
cooking on gas!
(remember even Moses needed Aaron )
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:RMlTFHA0...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <TTTN5.3946$%%1.25...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Zeno <martin...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >Traditional philosophers shouldn't be ignored, but they should be
>> >questioned. You can learn from the errors of the past. Even prejudice
>can
>> >be grist for the learning mill. One of the problems here, in the pomo
>> >crowd, is that they are so paranoid about bias and prejudice, that they
>> >create their own set of distortions without even knowing it! It's
>really
>> >funny to witness.
>>
>> Your only laughing at the penguins - but you should see us underwater!
>> --
>> James Whitehead
>
>
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
>...
> 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible
> manages both -
>
Please provide a reference for the aforementioned joke or
jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
for a work of such great length.
Ned
Zeno
The modernist/absolutist (your self) laughing at the silly
> looking relativists (me?) - but such relativists are better equipped
> (perhaps) to survive in the post-modern era of drowned modernity.
That's quite a thing to say since you've posted this thought on technology
that arose from the efforts of modern science, and within a liberal
democratic regime which owes its existence to the musings of modern
political philosophers. The astounding effects of modern philosophy are all
around and has provided you the space, affluence and right (freedom) to
criticize it.
And two, i think you're making a strawman of Modernism. The scientific
method (perhaps the central motif to modernism) allows for self correction
and its results to be falsified. That's hardly the mark of an absolutist
mode of thought. To me it combines rigor and openness at the same time.
> Bye the way i have read more of the site - some jokes might help-
Oh, you mean something like this?:
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed.
The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette
with a satisfied smile on his face. The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs
the sheet, rolls over and says, "Well, I guess we finally have an answer to
THAT question!"
> I did make some notes - you seem to go over the ground of existing
> thought and theory which gets dull at times:
>
> 1. its scope is such that it accounts for everything -
> metawise -pragmatically? adopting any refutation of theory as part of
> the theory similar to- analysis - your mad if you don't see it and mad
> if you do.
> 2. The basis of method - "the simplest explanation" has no foundation?
> in fact the simple explanations are often wrong.
That's a very simple thing to say! And just why do you say that?
> 3. It fails to account for the subtly of the world -
> it may say that this exists but can't describe it accurately
> so is a best a partial view.
It gives a deep and comprehensive account which explains the enormous
variation we see in life. Read the chapter on change and local/global
regularities.
> 4. Partial views are prejudiced views by necessity.
> 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible manages both -
> though the jokes are hard to spot i know, Wittgenstein's tractatus -
> which *only* explains philosophy has some good one liners... and of
> course Nietzsche manages both - poetic jokes -!
Again, although i like poetic expressions myself, it is not suffiencient to
damn a philosophic work because it lacks humor. You're introducing your
own tyranny and bias here, ironically... "the tyranny of style."
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes>>...
>> 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible
>> manages both -
>>
>
>jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
>a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
>for a work of such great length.
>
> Ned
>
- what's the funny story ?
--
James Whitehead
Susan R Murray
Ontologie.. by "Ned Ludd"@ix.netcom.com
> jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
> a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
> for a work of such great length.
I don't know when I read it I though THE WHOLE thing was a joke.
Susan
--|| | | | | |
http://futurebird.diaryland.com
Martyr without a cause.
Ned Ludd
James:
>> 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible
>> manages both -
Ned:
> Please provide a reference for the aforementioned joke or
> jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
> a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
> for a work of such great length.
Susan:
> I don't know when I read it I though THE WHOLE thing was a joke.
James:
> Jesus calling Simon Peter "The Rock" ....
>
A SARCASTIC Jesus? My goodness! And upon that rock he built
his church.
> - what's the funny story ?
>
OK. It's the story of Balaam's ass. Like I said, it's not
a joke in the sense of something with a punchline. But as the
story unfolds, the attitude of the donkey is, imo, quite funny -
a somewhat droll and world-weary animal answering his master's
injustice with a simple statement of the facts.
Ned
Here it is:
And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many:
and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel... He
sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor... saying,
Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover
the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: Come now
therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too
mighty for me... And the elders of Moab... came unto Balaam and
spake unto him... And he said unto them, Lodge here this night,
and I will bring you word again, as the LORD shall speak unto
me... And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with
thee? And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of
Moab, hath sent unto me, saying, Behold, there is a people come
out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the earth: come now,
curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to overcome them, and
drive them out. And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with
them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed. And
Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of Balak,
Get you into your land: for the LORD refuseth to give me leave to
go with you...
And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than
they... And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak,
If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I
cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.
Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I
may know what the LORD will say unto me more. And God came unto
Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee,
rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say
unto thee, that shalt thou do.
And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went
with the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he
went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary
against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants
were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in
the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned
aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote
the ass, to turn her into the way. But the angel of the LORD
stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and
a wall on that side. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD,
she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot
against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the
LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way
to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass
saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and
Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto
Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me
these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou
hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now
would I kill thee.
And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou
hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont
to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. Then the LORD opened the
eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the
way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head,
and fell flat on his face.
And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou
smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to
withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: And the
ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had
turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her
alive.
And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I
knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore,
if it displease thee, I will get me back again. And the angel of
the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word
that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam
went with the princes of Balak.
- Numbers 22:3-35
Simon Best
> >...
> > 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible
> > manages both -
> >
>
> jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
> a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
> for a work of such great length.
>
I found the Book of Job quite funny. Well, the calamities that befell
Job weren't funny, but God's sarcasm in the final part was at times. It
was worthy of John Cleese.
Or how about when Moses most eloquently explained his ineloquence to
God?
Or how about when Jesus had a bit of stage fright when it came to
performing his first miracle?
Or the bit when Jesus says to the apostles 'Are you so dull?'...
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> OK. It's the story of Balaam's ass. Like I said, it's not
>a joke in the sense of something with a punchline. But as the
>story unfolds, the attitude of the donkey is, imo, quite funny -
>a somewhat droll and world-weary animal answering his master's
>injustice with a simple statement of the facts.
>
> Ned
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>> James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1es6RJAQ...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>> >...
>> > 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible
>> > manages both -
>> >
>>
>> Please provide a reference for the aforementioned joke or
>> jokes in the Bible. I know of one funny story (but not really
>> a joke). The Bible, imo, remains remarkably devoid of humor,
>> for a work of such great length.
>>
>> Ned
>
>I found the Book of Job quite funny. Well, the calamities that befell
>Job weren't funny, but God's sarcasm in the final part was at times. It
>was worthy of John Cleese.
>
>Or how about when Moses most eloquently explained his ineloquence to
>God?
>
>Or how about when Jesus had a bit of stage fright when it came to
>performing his first miracle?
>
>Or the bit when Jesus says to the apostles 'Are you so dull?'...
>
>Simon
>
expression was not that which is disciples thought it was...
There is in the OT the story of those guys persuaded to be circumcised
and whilst in a painful state where slaughtered by the Israelites,
probably brought the house down back then - oh which reminds me....
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
Zeno <martin...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1es6RJAQ...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> The modernist/absolutist (your self) laughing at the silly
>> looking relativists (me?) - but such relativists are better equipped
>> (perhaps) to survive in the post-modern era of drowned modernity.
>
>That's quite a thing to say since you've posted this thought on technology
>that arose from the efforts of modern science, and within a liberal
>democratic regime which owes its existence to the musings of modern
>political philosophers. The astounding effects of modern philosophy are all
>around and has provided you the space, affluence and right (freedom) to
>criticize it.
..... and the whole of modernity arose from the medievalist period ....
and eventually back in time to some slime mould - i owe my freedom to
some supernova blowing up in the face of a forming solar system ... i
could also say this technology was the product of a war which killed
several millions- that capitalism is founded on the deaths and slavery
of more millions.... that the local has been destroyed by technology....
there are two sides you see -
But back to science et al. - i'm a fan - but it just doesn't work for me
as a theory of everything - it doesn't seem able to explain the giveness
of being here now. At one time i thought it tried - but i think its
another game...
>The astounding effects of modern philosophy are all
>around and has provided you the space, affluence and right (freedom) to
>criticize it.
Have you confused philosophy with science and science with
technology...? The social progress in England last century it could be
argued was much more to do with the Labour movement which has its roots
in non-conformist religion and a related Christian ethic... or do you
mean Marx?
>
>And two, i think you're making a strawman of Modernism. The scientific
>method (perhaps the central motif to modernism) allows for self correction
>and its results to be falsified. That's hardly the mark of an absolutist
>mode of thought. To me it combines rigor and openness at the same time.
fine - looking at history in such a way we see we can define periods,
and therefore its probable that the modern period will end, we also see
that things can get (from a modernist perspective?) worse, as in the
dark ages, and by using such empirical techniques see how modernity
appears to be in decline.
>
>> Bye the way i have read more of the site - some jokes might help-
>
>Oh, you mean something like this?:
>
>A chicken and an egg are lying in bed.
>The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette
>with a satisfied smile on his face. The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs
>the sheet, rolls over and says, "Well, I guess we finally have an answer to
>THAT question!"
you remain absolutist even when joking..
i prefer the one about a white horse that goes into a bar and asks for a
glass of whiskey, the bar man says "what kind" The horse replies "What
have you got?" The barman says "well - Johnie Walker, Cutty Sark,
Teachers, Bells, ......... even one named after you!
Horse "What ERIC ?"
Seems you can tell allot from jokes -
>
>> I did make some notes - you seem to go over the ground of existing
>> thought and theory which gets dull at times:
>>
>> 1. its scope is such that it accounts for everything -
>> metawise -pragmatically? adopting any refutation of theory as part of
>> the theory similar to- analysis - your mad if you don't see it and mad
>> if you do.
>> 2. The basis of method - "the simplest explanation" has no foundation?
>> in fact the simple explanations are often wrong.
>
>That's a very simple thing to say! And just why do you say that?
Your right i should stop maintaining propositions as such, though they
seem correct - i have modernist moments....
>
>> 3. It fails to account for the subtly of the world -
>> it may say that this exists but can't describe it accurately
>> so is a best a partial view.
>
>It gives a deep and comprehensive account which explains the enormous
>variation we see in life. Read the chapter on change and local/global
>regularities.
No you miss my point here, it does not say why the whiskey in front of
me now is not called ERIC. Your idea of deep - what is that - you would
understand grief? Apart from collections of DNA we are many other
things-
>
>> 4. Partial views are prejudiced views by necessity.
>> 5. It lacks poetry - (as well as a joke or two) The Bible manages both -
>> though the jokes are hard to spot i know, Wittgenstein's tractatus -
>> which *only* explains philosophy has some good one liners... and of
>> course Nietzsche manages both - poetic jokes -!
>
>Again, although i like poetic expressions myself, it is not suffiencient to
>damn a philosophic work because it lacks humor. You're introducing your
>own tyranny and bias here, ironically... "the tyranny of style."
I guess so - but i like red sauce on my chips - that in no way stops you
from liking or disliking ketchup on your fries. Lets agree that you can
live in your absolutist world and i in my relativist one, how does that
sound?
now playing REM everybody cries - sometimes-
--
James Whitehead
Franklin Cacciutto
John Timothy Hall wrote:
> ...emistomologies might.
>
> voidtech
> --
John Timothy Hall
> Not unless you learn to spell it.
>
> John Timothy Hall wrote:
>
voidtech
--
Goldbond really works!