Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi
dan wrote:I've been told that it goes with the territory........
dan wrote:Well, anyway, it has recently been suggested that there should be a ryan dube defense team, in the event of a possible backlash......Jack S might also be in need of such from his recent activities.
caryn wrote:dan wrote:Well, anyway, it has recently been suggested that there should be a ryan dube defense team, in the event of a possible backlash......Jack S might also be in need of such from his recent activities.
Ryan has people around him he can rely on - but thanks for the 'sincere' concern!
Didn't notice you leaping in to defend Jack btw.
caryn wrote:You'll see my response was directed at Dan, Mr K, if you look again.
You kidding? Jack loves Dan Smith!
Told by whom? Everything you write references a categorical Ontologism. That's not a bad thing- but neither is it a true thing. It contains, though, a certain conceit which might invalidate your entire exegesis. And exegesis it is. You rely on the Christian mythos for the subtext of your hypothesis. No zero sum analysis here. This is my objection.
'Presupposition' is more apt. And, of course they are 'avoidable.' 'Traditions' are of no value in a philosophical analysis. They are simply dross. And what of a phenominalogical theory that does not presuppose 'gravity?' Perhaps 'gravity' is simply the manefestation 'ethics' Or the cosmological 'mood.' Zero sum. The whole of existence is subject to new analysis once we overcome operative categories.given the premises of the BPWH
caryn wrote:Ryan has people around him he can rely on - but thanks for the 'sincere' concern!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests