Re: part-whole relations

Posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 3:33:09

In reply to Re: part-whole relations » zeugma, posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 1:05:13

actually... i guess G does change...
it is the time slices that don't change
i don't know whether a time slice counts as an object
or whether it is just supposed to be a part of an object.
we could imagine objects whose presence is totally exhausted by a time slice
a subatomic particle that has a brief moment of existence
why couldn't i be like that?
dammit
and why should i care about my relations (the other time slices)?
because the 'I' refers to them
the I refers to the space time worm
but that begs the question
why should i care about that?

Thread

z... talk to me... 838 3/9/06
...
Re: Venus calling special_k 4/16/06
Re: Venus calling » special_k zeugma 4/25/06
Re: Venus calling zeugma 4/25/06
Re: Venus calling » zeugma Estella 5/7/06
Re: Venus calling » Estella zeugma 5/7/06
Re: Venus calling » zeugma zeugma 5/7/06
with reference to wildcard zeugma 5/7/06
part-whole relations zeugma 5/7/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/7/06
Re: part-whole relations » Estella zeugma 5/7/06
Re: part-whole relations zeugma 5/7/06
Re: part-whole relations » zeugma Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
Re: part-whole relations Estella 5/8/06
z agent858 6/4/06
strange meeting » agent858 zeugma 6/15/06

Post a new follow-up

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:Estella thread:618106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060331/msgs/641210.html

	for
in