Re: Superset <=> subset

Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:39:54 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Sarah Marr: "Re: Certainty, Experiments & Facts"
Previous message: Sarah Marr: "Re: Serial consciousness"
Maybe in reply to: Ian Goddard: "Superset <=> subset"
Next in thread: Dr. Rich Artym: "Re: Superset <=> subset"

At 23:58 27/09/96 -0400, you wrote:
> At 02:09 AM 9/28/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>
> >>IAN: There can be only A -- such as "super-red-box" --
> >>where A possesses at least two contrasting features.
> >
> > Sorry, Ian, but that comes across as a ex post facto response which
> > undermines a lot if not all of your prior arguments. Internal dichotomy
> > does not remove the requirement for an external comparative.
>
>IAN: The whole (A, ~A) is the whole relative to the parts. The
>parts are said to be "not-whole." So that answers your counter...

Old ground, Ian. And with 141 messages from the lists yesterday, I don't
wanna go over it again!

Let's just agree to disagree. I can't see us getting any further, and on the
basics we agree.

Sarah

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next message: Sarah Marr: "Re: Certainty, Experiments & Facts"
Previous message: Sarah Marr: "Re: Serial consciousness"
Maybe in reply to: Ian Goddard: "Superset <=> subset"
Next in thread: Dr. Rich Artym: "Re: Superset <=> subset"