>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
ELLIOT:
>Erin, i dont understand how you can admit that separateness is an error but
>not uniqueness? is not uniqueness just an aspect of seperateness? the
>actions of the mind are to distinguish and to identify (unify). mine and
>yours are not illusions because we begin with two unique things and
>identify them with eachother, unifying them under some broader definition
>or world model, they are illusions because the intial act of distinguishing
>was an error. Because uniqueness is a result of first distinguishing, when
>one does not distinguish there can not be said to be uniqueness. Words
>fail this because they are results of the actions of the mind and connot
>there for describe a mind that does not act.
ERIN: The problem of distinguishing is categorizing something but you can not
categorize something that is unique. Uniqueness is aspect of separateness in
your categorization of uniqueness. I wouldn't put uniqueness as a result of
distinguishing, I would put it as a failure to distinguish.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:12 BST