----- Original Message -----
From: michael david pennamacoor <pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Teleological Centers
MdP:
wrt 'telelogical centers of activity' and Being, sorry, Catweasle, look
again, independent of agreeing or not with the "definition" (or indeed
whether it *is* a definition), it was of "beings" NOT Being... that's it,
no more...
Catweasel:
Hahahah! No, your wrong Michael, I didn't misread it - my repetition of the
phrase: telelogical _centers_ of activity i.e in the plural proves that I
didn't misunderstand the term. When I said: Thank God someone has at last
put me out of my misery and defined the term _being_ !!!!! I was referring
to _a being_ or _a girl_ in the singular, as I say later down if you look.
If you look further, when I say to John: Could I whimsically suggest that
_TCA s_ might be adopted as the denotative term in future? Notice again the
_s_ on the end of TCA s. It is obvious I am referring to the plural and
that I am talking about _beings_ as per John's definition and not the
dreaded _being__
Want more evidence? here it comes:
Please e-mail back John as soon as you possibly can and confirm that this
simple definition applies to both the noun _a being_ or two beings_ for
example _a girl_ or _two amoebae_, and for good measure explain to me what
_beingness_ means?
I've been thinking about the lovely phrase :'telelogical centers of
activity' incidently, and whilst I love the jewel-like clarity of it's
conception, I have certain reservations about its deterministic
implicatrions which I haven't thought through properly yet. :-)
Michael:
happy honeymooning :-)
Catweasel: <smile>
(Yes, life is one long honeymoon for Clare and I - how the hell did you
guess?
Are you pyschic?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
