From that sampling, I would say that there are a lot of gaps in Takahashi's "analysis."
Chris Li wrote:
Note that he himself said that Sagawa never explained what the principles themselves were, so what were left with is Takahashi's interpretation, which may or may not accurately reflect what he's actually doing.
Is it possible that the principles themselves cannot be named, but rather only their qualities can be described?
BTW... I'm posting this from a hammock on the beach in North Shore, Oahu. Life is good.