Re: CHAT: DeGracean theory (was: RE: CHAT: The Fabulous Personalities of Conlang
|From:||And Rosta <a-rosta@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, June 13, 2002, 17:48|
> --- In conlang@y..., And Rosta <a-rosta@A...> wrote:
> > Thanks to these discussions, I've realized that what I'm
> > after is not a theory of types or a theory of the dynamics
> > of personality, but rather a map of personality space.
> > The distribution of individual personalities within that
> > space is an empirical matter for which I suspect no decent
> > data exists.
> What do you mean by "personality space"? :)
The 'qualia space' of personality. For describing anything you
can define indefinitely many dimensions (scales) along which
members of the category being defined can vary, and those
dimensions then define a virtual multidimensional space.
> > I have to confess, Stephen, that although, as I said, I
> > did read your essay carefully and with interest, the thing
> > that sticks in my memory is your contention that correct
> > spelling is not an art for a gentleman. You are right,
> > but nor is art an art for a gentleman, and nor is
> > scholarship, philosophy, science or anything else useful
> > to society and civilization. The true art of a gentleman
> > is to cultivate complete parasitism on the Labour of
> > others. Accordingly, I reckon you neither orthographer
> > nor gentleman.
> Wow, And, that's a beautiful compliment... I think ;)
I think so too. Well, the bit about not being a gentleman is,
though. other things being equal, I do value orthography, so
I did find your spelling jarring (and unfortunately it was
not the exciting spectacularly bad spelling that Jack Durst
or occasionally Peter Clark come up with).