Jon, Andrea, Roger,
Jon, I wasn't refering to any particular named symbol in fact, still less to
whatever unknown god or principle it symbolises - I'm just more concerned
that your picture is incoherent and thus false, which thought I expressed
all too obscurely in the thought that it is chasing it's own tail.
Namely: that in order for "discrete" to be a metaphor it's use would have to
preceed the existence of the discrete objects from which the metaphor is
supposedly taken. It would have to predate itself. A thing cannot predate
itself. This is a logical impossibility.
(And not an invitation to jungian semiotics, or whatever).
Andrea, I don't think you really want to say that Zen amounts to accepting
incoherent stuff as valid answers to coherent questions. But I am just
guessing.
E
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:43:30 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD rogers metaphors
In a message dated 3/30/2001 6:42:10 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ELEPHANT:
It cannot, in this case, be a "physical metaphor", since in order for their
to be the "discrete" stuff in physics that you claim to be the basis of the
metaphor, discrete language itself must be used to create it.
Yours is thus a picture of a snake eating itself.
I take this to be a sign that the discrete/continous distiction is apriori
and not metaphorical in origin at all. This is in fact born out by the
dictionary citation which does not limit the distinction to spatio-temporal
sequence, but applies it *universally*.
JON:
You refer to the symbol of the Ouroboros, correct? Was that around in
Plato's
day?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
