Hello

[Ellen Stuttle]

I hope that Dragonfly notices this post. I've posted it in "Living Room" because I didn't want to mislead by having my name show up in the Epistemology Forum. I was anticipating responding there on Tuesday to his response to my summary critique of "the sensory world as projection" thesis, but I likely won't have time for that until (Deo concedente) Thursday. (I won't be home most of Wednesday.)

After replying to Dragonfly, I expect I'll have to break from all elist participation until the week following the traditional "Thanksgiving Seminar." That's an event -- often lasting from Thanksgiving Thursday through Sunday -- when there's a get-together, here, of four old friends who have been friends for years (dating back to the early '70s), all of us intellectually active, knowledgeable of Objectivism...and talkative. Plus, Larry and I, Thanksgiving afternoon, regale the other two with a "recital" of piano/violin compositions, for which it's a good idea to practice. Plus, before then, there's this problem of leaves falling from the trees which dot our property, and the removal of same. LIG (L. I. Gould, i.e., Larry) did a Fermi Problem calculation a few years ago of the number of leaves. Prodigious, and it's gotten more so in the succeeding years, since trees have a habit of growing.

Meanwhile...

I have a confession to make. The "emergency editing project" to which I referred in my last post (Epistemology Forum) was a bit of a quick fudge. What happened is this: I got into an off-list exchange with a good email friend about PARC. (The friend is George Smith.) I then became hooked on the thought of attempting a project which I've toyed around with the idea of attempting but have always said "no" to because of time factors: that of writing a detailed analysis. I started said analysis, impelled by a burst of fire, meanwhile sending installments to George. Later this week -- I suppose in the "Library" forum -- I'll post the series of installments thus far (slightly modified to leave out some personal details). That series, which is long, dissects all of PARC through -- get this -- pg. 52. As I've remarked before, doing a thorough critique of "that book" would require writing a book longer than that book.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you folks will have fun with the material I've written.

And...regrets expressed to RCR and Paul Mawdsley. I know that both of you would like for me to keep up on reading your posts (let alone with responding), which more often than not, I don't keep up with doing. I really am sorry about not providing more response. The problem isn't lack of interest, I assure you.

Ellen

Edit: Blast, I misspelled concedente in the original, an error the end of which I'd likely never hear from Mike Hardy.

___

Edited October 1, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle