It's beyond me too, because that's not how I was reading the N
quote the Leeson selected. I read it as condemning, or at least
questioning atomism. But then "sanction" is one of those funny
words like "cleave" which has two antonymous synonyms.
> It seems to me that the atom "inferred according to the logic of
> the perspectivism of consciousness" (i.e., as an artifact of
> consciousness) is not exactly disconnected from your "physics of
> neurophysiology." Or am I missing something?
I blanch at your calling the phrase "physics of neurophysiology"
mine, since I didn't use that phrase. I was trying to point out
that my original use of the word "physics" had a referent broad
enough and abstract enough that I could have just as accurately
used the word "physiology" to refer to that broad, abstract
referent, given the context of my use of the word.
Do you people have bodies? Do you type with fingers? Do you see
through your eyeballs and hear through your ears, or are you
just sucking this text straight out of my mind without any
physical intermediaries? I do not understand what is so
difficult to grasp about what I'm trying to refer to.
-- Eric Watt Forste ++ arkuat@pobox.com ++ expectation foils perception -pcd
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---