From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-24, D  wrote:   
      
   >>> True. We are literally trying to argue _from_ the I   
   >>> to convey an experience _without_ the I. On the other   
   >>> side, the person is using his I to understand what's it   
   >>> like without an I. Conceptually that's pretty close to   
   >>> impossible, if not impossible. Only direct experience,   
   >>> without the intermediary layer of words and thought,   
   >>> will convey it fully.   
   >>   
   >>         *** O... M... F... G...! ***   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> This is the first time this here seeming instance of   
   >> individuality has read someone he was interacting with   
   >> (as opposed to "reading it in a book") state such,   
   >> especially so clearly and on the money....   
   >>   
   >> This simulation we're defined in is getting danged   
   >> interesting, indeed!   
   >   
   > Ahh... glad I could be of service. Every once in a while   
   > we might stumble on some grains of wisdom here. ;)   
      
   I'm good at nothing if not stumbling!   
      
   > I think the above was inspired by a bit of Kant and a bit   
   > of Jaspers with a pinch of my own thoughts and words. I   
   > think I'll stick it in the book!  ;)   
      
   I'm already thinking you need a sequel. ;-)   
      
   --   
   oldernow   
   xyz001 at nym.hush.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)