Dearest erin,
Sorry for being so hard on the quote.
Erin:
> Although I don't like this quote all that much either I think it helped
> give some idea of uniqueness I was trying to express-irreplacable
> aspect. Elliot is unique. Elliot is not different in every way. Elliot
> is irreplacable.
Elliot:
That definiton is actually workable. By proposing the "different in every
respect" definiton i was trying to both incorporate comparrison into
uniqueness. It was a sliding scale definition where to the extent
something is different in however many respects it is unique, thus
uniqeness is an arbitrary term as there is nothing that we know of that is
"different in every respect". Irreplaceable works better as a definition i
think. However, this conversation started with the idea of self and unique
ownership of experience. That which is "uniqely mine". When we dont draw
the distinction between self and not self, then the mine dissapears and the
term uniquely (by any definition) is meaningless. Thus, although your
definition works well in the world we can talk about, when we get down to
the nature of the world before distinctions, to say something is uniquely
yours (or mine or his) is to error. This conversation started as a
question by you not understanding that. Do you see what we were getting
at? or do you even care anymore (that was a while ago).
Elliot
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