Standard Wolfean riddle

António Pedro Marques · 15 Aug 2010, 22:58 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:58:01 +0100
Subject: (urth) Standard Wolfean  riddle
In-Reply-To: <4C684B40.5040709 at verizon.net>
References: <466038.13612.qm at web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4C6477CA.90400 at gmail.com>	<4C649730.1070406 at verizon.net>	<4C6594C2.2000302 at gmail.com>
	<4C684B40.5040709 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4C6870F9.8000705 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote:
> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> David Stockhoff wrote (13-08-2010 01:52):
>>> As for Yesod being before Briah,
>>
>> What would that mean? What would its opposite mean?
>>
>> I suppose you mean Yesod having 'gnabed into' Briah or a 'predecessor'
>>  of Briah. But I don't think it can be put that way. Even if in our
>> analogies there is a succession A -> B -> C, the '->' isn't really
>> temporal, so it's more of something we use for our benefit than
>> something which has true significance - i.e., A -> B doesn't really
>> connect A to B.
> I'm not sure why I'm being asked to explain something I don't think is
> true.

So we know what it is that you think is not true?

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net