--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > >> <anartaxius@> wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>> The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence > > >>> of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold > > >>> that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' > > >>> seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the > > >>> self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, > > >>> which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest > > >>> quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon > > >>> makes it less ambiguous. > > >> > > >> Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. > > >> "For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature" > > >> is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed > > >> by a semicolon. > > > > > > It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although > > > in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno "gets" 'since' > > > in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as > > > an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) > > > > > > > Let me try again - first the original: > > > > 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's > > presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest > > quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > > > I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: > > > > [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] > > Well, that seems to me to be the very reason why you thought > the sentence is "not punctuated clearly", IMHO.
I did see it, but obviously I parsed the sentence incorrectly. Part of that, beside a lack of attention is when reading spiritual stuff there is a strong tendency to read between the lines based on one's own experience. One interprets what one reads in terms of that; there is no completely objective reality. For me scientific reality is about as objective as it can get.
