Hi Phil

(I am feeling unwell at the moment and unable to concentrate on "real work". So posts are a welcome diversion!)

Re your : "Seems that the question "What is it?" must only follow the question "Who/what am I?"
This I think is the meat of Philip's prior post.
And, both imply what sort of world we wish to make, as who we become must be at home in that world...
Socratic, to the core, here."

I agree with your point about the geologist and the farmer. But does it follow that we simply "make" the world?  I'd be inclined to say that our perception of things is always coloured by our interests/preoccupations, but we can only "colour" something that already exists (as distinct from something that doesn't). 

I don't think this means exactly that "the rock is reduced to what is in common between the farmer and the geologist" (or whoever). I think it just means that unless there is something - in this case a thing usually called a rock - neither the farmer nor the geologist will be able to perceive anything.  This is a bit inadequate, I realize...

Your comment reminds me a little of Derrida's "There is nothing outside the text".  But I perhaps I am missing your point. 

DA