(September 7, 2014 at 7:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(September 7, 2014 at 4:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I finally found my way to this thread of yours!
And.... what can I say... when you redefine transcendence in that way, then yes... but don't expect me to apply the same agreement if you start using the common definition of transcendence:
Tell you what... how about you come up with a different word, instead of "transcendent"?
The point is that the property has in a sense escaped the bounds of the mechanism on which it supervenes. The property has its own identity, despite supposing to be rooted in that mechanism.
Yes, I understand that.... but it's not the original (or common) meaning of the word, so it must be used with care.
