[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proofs and people

To: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: proofs and people
From: "J. Marie Hall" <fionaeval at yahoo_com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Over-the-Rhine at actwin_com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112302341400.28623-100000 at inch_interchange.ubc.ca>

peter said:

> Rather than define "stupid" as "Radiohead and
> anything which resembles it
> too closely", or whatever, why not come up with a
> more objective
> definition -- one that has no need of Radiohead for
> a reference point?
> 
> Once you've done that, it *may* turn out that
> Radiohead still matches your
> definition of "stupid", and you may be able to
> convince people of that, if
> you and they have already agreed on a definition of
> "stupid" -- but first
> you have to demonstrate to them that you're not
> loading the dice.

i agree with you, but don't we still run into the same
problem with reference points--even if they seem less
loaded?  everything is a metaphor--right?  which
philosopher had the image of the man with mirrors in a
cave?????

anyway, sign and signfied.  so we orient with
reference points we can work with.  aren't they all
eventually problematic if you keep going deeper.  it's
like the kid who asks a "why" question and after each
answer asks, "why?"

-j. marie

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/

Follow-Ups:

Re: proofs and people

From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>

References:

Re: proofs and people

From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>

Prev by Date: "word" games
Next by Date: Re: matt's take
Prev by thread: Re: proofs and people
Next by thread: Re: proofs and people
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread