From: Hara Ra (harara@shamanics.com)
Date: Sun Jul 05 1998 - 00:58:27 MDT
Andrew & Joe:
>> In a message dated 7/3/98 8:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> harara@shamanics.com writes:
>>
>> <<
>> I think the use of these notions is to show us just how much of philospohy
>> and discussion of consciousness is utter nonsense. Also in showing us the
>> implicit assumptions we use in ideas we think are well defined. First
on my
>> nonsense list is the word "real".
>> >>
>>
>> How exactly does the use of such notions show how much of philosophy is
>> nonsense?
The term "much" is approximate and I don't know how to calculate the
S(ense)/N(onsense) ratio of philosophy.
>And isn't your statement about philosophy a philosophical one?
Sure is.
> Isn't
>it therefore -- by your own definition (assuming the author to also
>be conscious and to be attempting a discussion of the issue) -- most
>likely nonsense, too?
Depends. For myself, 0 < much < most < all.
O--------------------------------O
| Hara Ra <harara@shamanics.com> |
| Box 8334 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 |
| |
| Death is for animals; |
| immortality for gods. |
| Technology is the means by |
| which we make the transition. |
O--------------------------------O
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:17 MST