Dear pzeph,
I think what chris is getting at is that the study of the gooey stuff is
pertinent to the study of meatphysics (oops, I love those typos: I meant
"metaphysics"!) precisely because the two are reciprocal; the "all that we
know" is exactly the all that we can know (so far), given what we know it
with (: the gooey stuff). So, as with all objects, processes and
relationships, metaphysics doesn't exist in a vacuum (well, get away!), and
its useful to consider it from a variety of perspectives.
Is that right, Chris?
p.s. - thanks for the references.
I wrote earlier to defend Chris's use of apostrophes around the word
"object" becasue
a) I'm a firm believer in the spurious use of the apostrophe;if in doubt,
put 'em in (I think there's a whole website devoted exactly to this issue!),
and
b) the whole concept of the concreteness of certain "things" in our universe
(ref whitehead) is exactly what needs continual questioning. The "atoms of
obviousness and intelligibility" (ref:can't remember) are exactly what
betray understanding. So, there's no such thing as an 'exact metre', an
exact definition, etc., etc., - but if this sounds like an argument for "all
is flux", or conversely, "all apparent change is illusory", then we might as
well pack up and go home... oh, bugger! we are home!
All in all, the argument comes down to "the only thing we can be sure of is
that there is no such thing as 'absolute',..and that is absolutely true"..
I sense Zeno approaching from left-field.
Peter Lennox
Hardwick House
tel: (0114) 2661509
e-mail: peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk
or:- ppl100@york.ac.uk
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST