On 17 Feb, 16:15, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 Feb., 14:49, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 16 Feb, 18:55, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Perhaps it is artificial. I certainly had nothing to do with > > constructing either language or matter. So, I can only surmise these > > to be natural. Whether they are analogous, well, if so, then that > > would, too, be natural; if they (language and matter) are, in fact, > > artificial, then any semblence between them would be as artificial as > > the things themselves. > > Ah, but Pat, this is where you miss my point. I wasn't talking about > language or matter, rather the categories we use to analyse them; to > wit, our conventional grammatic categorisations, or even the periodic > table of elements. These are models, and - as I'm sure you will agree > (even while embarked on your search for the Universal Theory of > Everything) - we can use many different models to achieve insights > into that which we perceive. It is, however, always risky to push > models too far - above all, to forget that models are just that, > models. >
True. But that never stopped Kate Moss. ;-) > Francis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en.
