Stephen DeGrace: > --- In conlang@y..., And Rosta <a-rosta@A...> wrote: > > Thanks to these discussions, I've realized that what I'm > > after is not a theory of types or a theory of the dynamics > > of personality, but rather a map of personality space. > > The distribution of individual personalities within that > > space is an empirical matter for which I suspect no decent > > data exists. > > What do you mean by "personality space"? :) The 'qualia space' of personality. For describing anything you can define indefinitely many dimensions (scales) along which members of the category being defined can vary, and those dimensions then define a virtual multidimensional space. > > I have to confess, Stephen, that although, as I said, I > > did read your essay carefully and with interest, the thing > > that sticks in my memory is your contention that correct > > spelling is not an art for a gentleman. You are right, > > but nor is art an art for a gentleman, and nor is > > scholarship, philosophy, science or anything else useful > > to society and civilization. The true art of a gentleman > > is to cultivate complete parasitism on the Labour of > > others. Accordingly, I reckon you neither orthographer > > nor gentleman. > > Wow, And, that's a beautiful compliment... I think ;) I think so too. Well, the bit about not being a gentleman is, though. other things being equal, I do value orthography, so I did find your spelling jarring (and unfortunately it was not the exciting spectacularly bad spelling that Jack Durst or occasionally Peter Clark come up with). --And.