| Original Message |
Occhi (no login)
Posted Jun 4, 2002 8:45 AM
Please don't discard the issue. It is not the empty set-- poor analogy, alright? It aint all about charge, mass is important, and then there is the problem of neutrons goind AWOL now and again . . . The neutron is, if uncharged, a pretty darn important item, considering that it is neutrons running about that creates fissile reactions, and then there are the fusion reactions that keep the sun on fire. Etcetera, etcetera.
So, rather tangentially, I point out to you that ignoring the set of C, or by perhaps assuming it away as the empty set, you ignore its potential. The problem that I have not given you the shape of C is not germane, as C's existence seems to you a lesser included case. Possibly a reach with that metaphor, but there you have it.
Again, by claiming that "Top Down includes all sets" you present an assumption, and no, I do not see it proven. I remain unconvinced that, even though bipolar arguments, or dichotomies, have an intuitive sense of rightness to them due to our own experiences and the dark light, on off, life death, observable physical phenomenon, that is necessarily limited to the physical model.
Please don't feel that it is your duty to convince me. It isn't. Continuing to hammer away at this when you are engaged more deeply than I, in terms of the time and effort you have spent developing your philosophy, will hardly change my PoV. I do not share your passion for this argument, or the depth of this argument, at present. Perhaps in a few years.
As I said previously, you have given me food for thought, and for that I thank you.  |
|
|
