Hi Yes the story is good, and falls into the common situation where there is an important obstacle between the "I" part of any equation, and the object.
In other words, a classic subject-object relationship. In order to grip that object we find the something who stop us by definition, we ourselves. Under certain point of view, this "we ourselves" is language. Undestood as the instance able to uncover the world by blinding those who need it as the only ridiculous tool available. In another post you mentioned how a code line in a wrong position stopped your program and how difficult was to see a piece of text, of your own. Like if you wanted on purpose not to see what you yourself knew was there. I'm a linguist and I'm interested in two dimensional objects. I'm referring to objects which need by definition two parameters, and two only. Time looks like one of those if you think you need always two reference points. Any reference to time always needs duration, which is made of two references. Regardless physics, music, pseudo science, religions, etc, and even regardless if it even exists, time cannot be referred by one or more axes, but two. Same happens with temperature, and other concepts, and importantly to me, text (I'm including here any conventional list of elements which only need to be unique and to have a unique position in that list) Will appreciate your point of view as a software engineer, you deal with sequences, when you write you need to follow the order needed by the application you try to develop. So you are used to a bidimensional space as a writer rgd Carlos On Dec 19, 2:25 am, LCC <[email protected]> wrote: > No responses? How about a joke... > A crowd of people is assembled in a public place to view the > performance of a "magician". The magician explains that he can do a > magical deed, observable by all, and sets his hat down to collect the > applause money. He performs the magical deed of producing a gold coin > from his empty hands, with no possibility of cheating because he is > wearing only briefs. He tosses the gold coin into the hat and produces > another, which he tosses into the hat. As the crowd applauds, he asks > for donations, and a few coins are tossed his way, which he puts into > the hat. The following observations are made : > 1) A Priest sees the performance, and thinks "Perhaps I have seen a > miracle", he hurries away to tell his confessor. > 2) A Physicist sees the same, and thinks "Perhaps I have seen evidence > of a violation of natural law", and rushes off to write a new theory. > 3) An Engineer sees the same, and thinks, "Perhaps I can build a > machine to do that", he approaches the magician and asks him to talk > in private when he is done performing. > 4) A Businessman sees the same, and sidles up to the magician. He > whispers in the magician's ear "I will let you have 20% of the profits > if you let me license your act". > 5) A Pickpocket sees the same first coin appear, and while everyone is > oohing and aahing at the spectacle, he works the crowd, escaping with > a dozen wallets and a new appreciation of magicians. > 6) A policeman sees the same, works his way through the crowd to the > magician and demands to see his license for public performing. > 7) Well, I could go on but the point should be made by now... > > They all saw the same event, yet none of them really perceived what > happened, because they were too busy filtering their senses with > preconceptions. The point which I am trying to make here as regards > my first post is that I do NOT claim any special ability or knowledge, > rather I think that there are millions of people who have experienced > at least one of those three examples above. Due to cultural bias, the > discussion of such topics is left to those who are considered insane, > because the mere claim that such things occur is a-priori evidence of > insanity as judged by the current crop of psychologists. Would it not > be better to examine the possibility of such things occurring (the > message), rather than labeling all who observe them (the messengers) > as insane? Within this newsgroup epistemology, I expect that there are > dozens if not hundreds who were led to the subject itself due to the > fundamental question being raised in their own minds regarding the > nature of reality in general, and time in particular. In my personal > experience there have been two occasions when something which I > observed was also observed by another person (in both cases total > strangers). In both cases they rejected the observation with the > equivalent of the logical sequence : > 1) Unless I am going crazy, something impossible just happened. > 2) I am very sane, and cannot afford to be judged crazy. > 3) Since I am sane, impossible things do not happen. > 4) Therefor I will forget that it ever happened. > > As someone says in his signature (I could Google it, but am too lazy) > "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." > > If there is an authoritative non-mystical, non-religious, treatment of > the topic "Nature of time" OUTSIDE of fiction, I would greatly > appreciate a reference. I am well aware of the dozens of science > fiction books which SPECULATE on the topic. My interest ranges from > amusement to disgust in such cases... > > Lonnie Courtney Clay formerly "Laughing Crazy Coot" - no longer > laughing, trying to overcome crazy, but unfortunately still a balding > old coot... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
