Sir, you can bet that if I ever used a phrase like “transcendental unity” I would be able to tell you exactly what it meant. It would probably have math in back of it. Because if I wanted to talk about something I couldn’t really define, I would call it something much less impressive and as close to ordinary English as possible, for fear of being called on it.
The above is not applicable to Eliezer_2003 and below.
I’ve long loved this piece, but today would file most of its examples simply under “getting carried away”.
Items on the list that reminded me of Eliezer’s writings: #19, #22, #32, #35. Indictment not intended.
Sir, you can bet that if I ever used a phrase like “transcendental unity” I would be able to tell you exactly what it meant. It would probably have math in back of it. Because if I wanted to talk about something I couldn’t really define, I would call it something much less impressive and as close to ordinary English as possible, for fear of being called on it.
The above is not applicable to Eliezer_2003 and below.