>> 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.
>Elliot:
>I think by naming something you automatically put it in a category.
If
>something could not be categorized in any way, was the essence of
>uniqueness (IE: had no similarities to either exsistance or non-exsistance)
>then, well... all things can be both distinguished from other things
>and identified with other things, and if you say it cant be then your
>speaking a language i cant understand.
ERIN: maybe it is just an attempt at a "nonstatistical language"
ELLIOT: Self (what i think you mean by true
>uniqueness) is the result of distinguishing from not-self. Hence, subject
>and object. Thus, if self is what you mean by uniqueness, it is in fact a
>reslut of distinguishing, and not a failure to distinguish.
ERIN: No this not what I mean. Self is "distinguished" from nonself.
I still think you can not distinguish what is truly unique.
ELLIOTfailure is a funny word to use i think because it imples an error, when
>infact both john and i think that distinguishing is infact the error. If
>one did not distiguish, well, my point is uniqueness requires another
>something to be compared to to be considered unique (as one refers to a
>many to distinguish itself from). If one did not distinguish there would
>be only One, not one in referance to many which is why it is improper to
>try to term it, but just (blahhh) (that noise sums it up best i think).
>This Blahhh is not unique because it cannot be compared to anything. thus
>i say if distinguishing is not absolute but illusion (and it is), than
>similarly the idea of uniqueness is illusion and error.
ERIN: Uniqueness doesn't require it to be compared to something else.
This comparing/contrasting is all a part of "distinguishing" to me.
Something unique can't truly be compared/contrasted to anything.
>ELLIOT: I hope i was clear enough, its a difficult thing to put in words. If
you >dissagree, then i obviously dont grasp what it is you think is absolutly
>unique (cant be distinguished or identified with anything else). Either
>self or the Blahhh before distinguishing seem to me the only possible
>runners for this position, and if thats so, than uniqueness is indeed an
>error.
ERIN: This is a hard to thing to put in words, It feels uncomfortable trying
to describe uniqueness in the first place.
My position is still distinguishing(comparing/contrasting) is the true error.
"We are all unique,every single one of us" Unk
Erin
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