Kat Feete wrote:
Or, put another way, (and to bring this back to a thread from two or three months ago):Therefore, Kant concludes, math is *not* transcendant; it requires reference to the material world and expression through it, and is therefore, as Merleau-Ponty will argue a century or so later, affected and defined, like all things, by our worldview and our subjective conciousness. It's no more "real" or transcendant than anything else.
Blackadder: Right, Baldrick, let's try again,
shall we? This is called "adding". If I have two
beans and then I add two more beans... what do
I have?
Baldrick: Some beans.
Blackadder: Yes, and no! Let's try again, shall
we? I have two beans and I add two more beans.
What does that make?
Baldrick: A very small casserole.
Blackadder: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the
Indus have mastered this. Now try again. One,
two, three, four. So how many are there?
Baldrick: Three.
Blackadder: What?
Baldrick: And that one.
Blackadder: Three and that one. So if I add that
one to the three... what will I have?
Baldrick: Aah... some beans.
Blackadder: Yes. To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance
was just something that happened to other people,
wasn't it?
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
