Yes you pointing out your own vanity completely excuses it.
Perhaps you actually didn't see anything worth adressing written by me, that doesn't really help your case either though. You did actually adress one of my posts though.
When I wrote:
It does take some measure of magical thinking to simply leap from syntactic knowledge to semantic.
You answered with:
No cherry, it doesn't. at all.
Mysticism and irrationalism are "magical thinking."
There is a difference in using inferential leaps and rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality) and the above.
Okay so at some time syntactic knowledge simply becomes semantic, not magical at all, point taken. Then when I later wrote:
Oh and TA I find it intellectually dishonest to dismiss panpsychism on the basis of its connection to mysticism, seeing as MBTI originated from mysticism as well and Jung -whose works you've been happy to peruse and divulge- was a mysticist. He was likely also being some kind of panpsychist going by these quotes:
"psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another"
as well as that it was probable that
"psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing"
^taken from wiki article on panpsychism.
You didn't answer at all.
Such rationality, such only care about truth, such TA. But hey go ahead and do some rational things like WRITING IN CAPS FOR THE SAKE OF BEING ABLE TO SAY LATER ON THAT YOU WERE BEING IRONIC SHOULD THE NEED ARISE.
Now I'm gonna copy some classic TA tactics:
This thread is pointless and there is nothing worth adressing at all, it is obvious that TA needs to consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality and before he has done that I can do no more /cherry cola out