FM>    More and more, David, as I read your response to various problems 
 FM> when 
 FM> offered in philosophical language (broadly speaking) I perceive that 
 FM> you 
 FM> generally take the approach of Goethe - i.e., the approach of the 
 FM> artist.  I 
 FM> have no quarrel with that.  In fact, I understand it to be in general 
 FM> the 
 FM> approach of Aristotle as well since Aristotle considered myth to be 
 FM> attacking 
 FM> exactly the same problems as philosophy and a generosity regarding 
 FM> meanings is certainly in order. 
You have hit on the nub of a thread between David and I Frank. In 
noting the *use* which Aristotle put on myth makes me aware that I 
too, am employing myth, or allegory, or parable, to communicate a 
set of ideas which weave togather a coherent of re-ALL-ity, as he 
put it. 
 
Each of the threads can be disputed as to whether it supports the 
weight I have given it, although I don't see any thread clearly 
as broken by the strain.  but woven togather, they form a fabric
to lay it all out on. 
 
I find it ironic that the extreem noetic discipline of quantum 
physics now has their formulae not proved by rational analysis 
anymore, but like Goethe, judged on the basis of aesthetics. It 
looks to me like a parable here too. Is all truth allegorical? 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------