> On 14 sep, 20:03, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>> pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

>>> On 11 sep, 21:00, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>>> pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:

>>>>> On 10 sep, 22:38, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Joseph Humming wrote:
>>>>>> But what exactly is being referred to as a condition? And a condition of
>>>>>> what? 'A condition' doesn't get off the ground, not even as an idea.

>>>>>>> a singular state of being, singular in many senses. One
>>>>>>> aspect of that condition is a distance between the person and the
>>>>>>> beliefs and enthusiasms of the crowd. I was suggesting that only such
>>>>>>> a level of separation could enable, or induce, someone to challenge
>>>>>>> long-held verities of the species..

>>>>>> So what you must be saying is that in order for humankind to develop
>>>>>> then it must not be gregarious. Many species are not gregarious.
>>>>>> And of course, it's no more a condition to be gregarious than it is not
>>>>>> to be gregarious.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
>>>>> It seems Joseph is one of the people who thinks asperger might not be
>>>>> a disability at all.

>>>> A disability for whom?

>>>>> Personally I think it is,

>>>> Yes, because you stand on what you perceive as the best, privileged side
>>>> of the fence.

>>>>> but like depressive
>>>>> persons people with asperger syndrome might sometimes understand the
>>>>> thruth better than socially happy optimists!

>>>> No. Some people understand the truth better than others. That's it. The
>>>> rest - 'depressives' and 'syndromes' etc., merely doffs a cap to an
>>>> ultimately irrelevant clinical world-view.

>>>>> I seem to remember that Truecristian was much more reasonable when in
>>>>> a depressive state, than when she was maniac. I do not have any
>>>>> knowledge of people with asperger. (unless Joseph is one).

>>>> Nobody 'has' what? Are you talking about possessions, or germs etc
>>>> carried around by normal people? This clinical language is a
>>>> philosophical and common sense dead end.

>>> Sorry, what are you referring to?
>>> The only sentence in which I used the verb "to have", was:
>>> "I do not have any knowledge of people with asperger" (maybe I should
>>> have added "'s syndrome")
>>> Neither of your to questions nor your remark abour clinical language,
>>> seems verty to the point.'
>>> What kind of language - according to you - would have been proper to
>>> express my lack of personal experience on the subject?
>>> Love,
>>> Peter van Velzen
>>> September 2008
>>> Amstelveen
>>> The Netherlands

>> Personal experience doesn't come into it. I am not complaining so much
>> against your language, but the language we use in society generally.
>>
>> 'People with asperger's' means the same as
>> 'Normal people who have an illness'.
>> Both are misguided whichever way we look at it.

>
> Do you have problems with comprehensive reading?
> I was trying to say that - as far as I know - I never met anyone who
> was diagnosed as havings aspergers disease.

> That statement was solely about personal experience.

> So "Personal experience doesn't come into it" is not a logical
> reaction.