Re: SUO: Re: 'q'
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > | Now, if this feeling of 'q' be the only creation of
> > | the god, it will of course form the entire universe.
>
> Of course. On the other hand, of course,
> that would entail that the god had created
> the god, among other things (since some things
> appear to clearly be something other than the god;
> I am thinking in particular of one of my uncles);
> and since it seems hard to see quite how something
> could have created itself as well as other things,
> it would seem to follow that the premis in question
> is likely to be false. Not, of course, that that
> conclusion should come as any particular surprise,
> under the circumstances, since both of the signs
> in question here -- "the god" and "this feeling
> of 'q'" -- both seem to be prime examples of
> non-referring strings. Which brings us to
> the central question which this message
> raises: why are we even bothing to
> read this rubbish?
>
> Pat Hayes
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
It was just a little night music, Pat,
a lightly traced divertimento, no more,
something about 'qualia time', I think,
I don't even know where he's going yet,
but I just feel that we can all maybe
use a bit of diversion now and again.
Ay, there's the rub-ish!
Cheers,
Jon
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤