> What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature > and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world" > and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
I liked this the most and you are a good writer, no doubt Unfortunately physics is beyond reach to me, and I want to call the attention to your line above. It has humor, makes sense, denotes high education levels, and the special rhythm of good literature You could have it said totally different, but you chose the literary pathway, why But even in case you decide to say the same using a cold approach the question should sustain, because whatever we said/write is always the barrier between us and that we want to refer. Language has two ends, like a bridge, we are stuck on this side. This is an old debate and I will not add anything of value of course, we dont have any other means but language. I do regret yes, when the thinker does not take this in account, or when s/he tries to discover special brain circuits or chemicals to bypass what is obvious, which is the fact that we are separate forever from the same we want to grasp on. I'm also a defender of poetry, which IMO is the closest form to understand that that we will never be able to say. Your line is a good case of what I'm saying here. > > And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for > pataphysical nature of mass. > > Georges. > ============== -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
