At 10:31 AM 1/28/99 -0700, Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
>Ian,
>
>Perhaps I've misunderstood your posts. If by "collective entity" you mean
>simply a composite object, such as a galaxy or a person, I've no objection
>to your usage.
>
>I was under the impression that you wished to extend the term to include
>such non-objects as "society" and other relational systems which are often
>reified as some sort of "entity", giving rise to a certain class of
>category error. This is what I've been arguing against. If this is not what
>you have in mind, then we're in accord, and I apologize for fostering
>confusion.
IAN: I don't believe that a case has been made that the thing called "society" is an illusion. A group entity is an illusion because.... ???? Because it gives "rise to a certain class of category error." What class of category error?
"He who pursues learning will increase every day;
he who pursues Tao will decrease every day."
Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching)