George:
>I say vulnerable because I am not at ease discussing concepts I have not previously handled - and am,
therefore, possibly, a fool for even attempting to do so.<
I greatly appreciate your unease. I share it. I've made myself a pretty big target here for the "A is A' practitioners. Don't fear any bad vibes from me.
I'm poorly schooled in philosophy, so I often risk stepping into piles thoroughly surveyed by smarter deader scribes than myself. But I still wade in. I get more pleasure out of engaging, and risking, than staying safe&mute. Sometimes. (Grinning two-year-old sculpting dog poo)
>>Yet, being
able to skilfully juggle A's and I's is thrilling - we are using our playpen 'hello life!' toys, and having
serious fun in doing so.<<
Heartily agreed. We are embryonic sentients having a grand old time with A and with I and with MC squared and all manner of javelins of the mind. I don't know where we will go from here, but it has the potential of being really cool. Clarke: Childhood's End. Bear: Blood Music. On the dark side, Gibson: Neuromancer.
>I believe your entire second paragraph, and half of the third, are "interpretations" of A. You say what it
is, what it isn't. You, face it, have fairly well spelled out A.<
Could be. I'll think on it. I was perhaps trying to invoke a pure abstraction; this is made dicey by our being mired in semantics.
A benediction: "Vaya con carne" |
