Adrian, I think that we've both made our points without email
nitpicking semantics and needlessly fine points of the argument.
>I think the main problem is that you thought he was pondering on what
>is, while he was really addressing what is perceived as being and how
>that can/should be manipulated to bring about changes in what is.
There definitely might have been a misunderstanding in the points
that he was trying to convey. I think that my interpretation was
more reflective of the actual text, but maybe you have pre-existing
knowledge of his position, or identify with him in some other way.
Maybe I'm just being deliberately obtuse and belligerent. :)
If you're correct, I'm hoping he'll be a little clearer and logical next time.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT