From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Sun 17 Jun 2001 - 05:23:08 EEST
Julian Lord and I:
> > I'm a bit clearer about what you seem to be suggesting (I think!) but
> > no more convinced thereby. If the transcendent "world" were actually
> > something different, what, pray tell, would characterise it?
>
> Sorry, but the question is nonsensical. Transcendence is actually the reverse
of
> characterisation or differences, which is a bit mind-boggling really.
I didn't ask you to characterise the transcendent; I asked you to
If we're now in the position that you're still asserting that it is,
> > To approach the transcendent world requires a quite different order
That's not true or useful in any substantiative sense.
characterise the world that everyone else seems happy enough with the
proposition that it's transcendent (since its transcendence is,
specifically, what sets it apart from the "Otherworlds" per se), but
that _you_ explicitly suggested might be regarded as immanent.
or that it may be, not transcendent, but that's it's impossible to
characterise how this might be so, then while I wouldn't go so far as
to say it was nonsensical, then the word "pointless" would certainly
spring to mind...
> > of change in one's self than any of the others.
>
> No, because to enter (or even contact) *any* otherworld is a transcendental
power.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:40:35 EEST