Re: Illumination

From: Paul May <kax_at_...>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:56:07 +1000

At 01:07 AM 11/10/04, Jane wrote:
>It depends on what you thiink Illumination is, and from the look of
>Greg's comments yesterday, previous explanations had never really got
>across what he meant by the concept. Might be worth leaving this
>discussion until we're all working from the same definition.

  Yup. Now I know where it is, we can wait for that - rather than making guesses... ;)

| Paul May               | kax_at_...
| Kax Hoplodyne, Ltd     | the_kax_at_...
| MIB 1138; RD Australia | spell_at_...
| PGP key on www.pgp.net | games and freeforms done while you
|                        | wait (some lead-time required)

  "We only accept logic as being inviolate because we don't have the ability to doubt it. Now, isn't it rather arrogant to assume that something is true simply because we don't have the ability to doubt it? I decided that it was, and rejected logic as anything but a product of the limitations of human understanding. This rather neatly knocks the pins out from under virtually every argument ever put forth and relegates some of the loftiest works of the human mind to the level of mere conjecture."