dear klaus
you are right. i should have been more sensitive to that.
and my carelessness points to the fact that there may well be real culture
difference in the way i think about 'being'. i am maybe eastern in my core.
i remember as a teenager taking an 'introduction to philsophy' course in a
canadian university, i was perplexed that i was asked to do mathematics (and i
didn't do very well at all). i was then expecting to learn about love, human
relationships, right and wrong, good and bad, and all those things that chinese
ancient philosophy focused.
and funny enough, tony fry thinks it important to look at the ancient chinese
philosophy for design.
and also as funny, in the chinese language there is no difference of
plural/singular in nouns. it is just one word representing both plural/singular
at all time. so the whole/part problem doesn't exist in that sense.
rosan
klaus krippendorff wrote:
> these definitions are quite right.
>
> being = existence, the "what IS," unpolluted by perception.
> note that the greeks had a very different ontology and epistemology than
> descartes had and that we now accept
|