[FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke

[⛧ glen]

Yes, please. I'm not a fan of defining terms before using them, because demanding such is usually a sign of adversarial strawmanning. But Nick's use of privilege combined with claiming he's addressed scope/extent is baffling. So even if it can't be rigidly denoted, at least swap in and out some other words.

Some alternates might be:
private, immanent, imminent, encapsulated, opaque, near, personal, idiosyncratic, bounded, priority, closed, contained, sovereign, subjective, atomized, individuated, particulate, granular, ...

There are lots of words out there. Don't be stingy.


On November 8, 2021 12:49:04 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>Please define "privilege".  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of thompnickson2 at gmail.com
>Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:28 PM
>To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
>
>Gosh, Glen,
>
>I do hate the me that you describe.  What an otiose boring old fart! 
>
>When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is that a flattening?  
>

-- 
glen ⛧