pig

roach, no sweat - handle the deadline. been there, am there, will be there again. nature of the beast. let 3-d guy handle his business, this will wait.

re: objectivity - understood. the reason i asked for clarification on your definition is to make sure its consistent with mine. my studies have not been in classic "Philosophy" but I find the subject fascinating. How could I not, given my post above? I personally am a big fan of objective statements, as long as they are seen in context, etc.

2. The question about scales. If you observe phenomena at one scale, fit a theory to them that seem to fit, do you feel its useful to posit that a similar theory may pertain at other scales of time / length? The reason I ask is that I think it is a useful manner in which to proceed, once again as long as you keep track of your assumptions, in order to try to understand what you don't know, based on what you think you do. From many of your posts, I perceive that you do not share this perspective and feel it is much more likely to lead to erroneous results.

Also, thanks for the reference to the book by atlan. I have only read a limited amount of philosophical works that are academically "credible," - is this guy peer-reviewed and so forth. My journal reading has been limited to other areas, but I think I'm about to have start seriously reading. Do you have any references for decent review papers on metaphysics, ontology, etc? I don't think jumping into the minutae would be useful for me at this point, but I've become wary of pop-philosophy texts and books summarizing positions.

Shit, I've got some reading to do.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style