What has been just mentioned in the preceding post does not conflict with asking "So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand?" in post +140. What is in the preceding post does not mean that we should not try to find what meaning would result from combining the two parts around the second comma. Instead, it just says that we have no right to cancel their existence as processes while doing that. With regard to implying what was mentioned in the quote above as the only purpose, the second comma here is like the staple that holds two pages in an article together. Looking inside at the content one may ignore the role of that staple in holding those two pages together while preserving their integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment