tommyc

Ok, I have a question regarding this design. Is this design purely one dimensional (ignoring the thickness of the "short lines") or is it a cross section of a series of two dimensional bars?

Actually, reviewing Mageth's post, is that what you were getting at?

i.e. viewing those T's from above? I guess so. It could be a row of U's with very thick serif:

UUUUUUUUUUU

Anyway, i think its lines interrupting the space, because generally in computing (the medium of this forum) you see black on white.

Unless you're very old skool.

cheers

Tom

snatchbalance

Ierrellus,

Well, I guess any large brained social animal would develope different calls for different situations. More precise information would convey a survival advantage.

Tigers approach from the ground.
Eagles approach from the sky.
Snakes(many times) wait in trees.

The calls convey the context of the threat.

SB

snatchbalance

The lines and spaces after this word serve as a form of punctuation. You could have used a number of different symbols, but I know why you put them there.

SB

phaedrus

Ierrellus

I merely suspected that Heidegger, in search of ontological reality, would necessarily have run into the problem of explaining epistemology in pragmatic or mystic terms. For me either interpretation appears limited.

What exactly do you think of Heidegger's hermeneutics? Do you agree with the following - As an aid in the effort to get back to “Thinking of Being” and its redemptive effects, Heidegger employs linguistic or hermeneutical techniques. He develops his own German, his own Greek, and his own kind of etymologies. He coins, for example, about 100 new complex words ending with “-being.” In reading his works one must, thus, translate many of its key terms back into Greek words and then consider his free, often special (but never uninteresting), interpretations and etymologies.

Cant really comment on the remainder of your post except for the "innate" part, are you trying to suggest that we "agree" coz it is wired into us to do that?

Ierrellus

phaedrus:

I really admire Martin Heidegger's bold approach to philosophy, his creativity and most of his ideas. He is not confined to the systems of thought that later claim origin in his ability to express ideas.

To get beyond idea to being is a circular argument involving idea as being. Both being and idea are human experiences. Neither can be discussed among us humans without considering the idea of an idea. Pure being is as incomprensible as is pure thought. Likewise, there is no reason without motivation, hence "pure reason' is a meaningless phrase.

Reason has reasons!

Ierrellus

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Liquidrage

Question:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Answer:
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101 0010 0000 0010 1101 0010 0000
0010 1101


The real debate is if there's another space after the last hyphen

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Ierrellus

Liquidrage:

Excellent! And that is the real question! If nothing follows the something, then what was the something for? Does something have to follow?

In presenting this simple design, I did three things. First, I typed the bars and spaces, which represent anyone's immediate perception of an object. Second, I asked questions that imposed meanings on the object, which represents a person coming into a world in which what he/she perceives is predefined. Third. I asked if there are any other possible ways of seeing the object.

The responses I have gotten range from denial that the design has any personal meaning worthy of consideration to neat personal interpretations.
Conclusions later. I'm still fishing.

Ierrellus

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

PJPSYCO

The problem with the '- - - - - - -' is that the questions do not apply to the figure. The questions mearly cause the reader to take a certain opinon on what the creater of the figure is trying to express. The problem is that the figure follows niether questions because it is not a line and not space due to it's confinement on the screen. Another perameter must be defined for the question to be understood. For example, arrows pointing around at the edge of the figure saying space, or at the ends of the line saying more line these ways.
The current question is equivelent to me saying that I have a dog, and asking what breed is it? Without me giving the parentage of the dog, my answers will be at best a guess, and will be right only with a percentage of (1/number of breeds*capable cross breading breeds), and for the answer 'one of them'.

Quite simply poor questions get poor answers.
Correct the figure and ask again.

As for infitinity, it is just a thing we use to represent that we don't have all day to count that far. Its only applications are estimation, and limits. Ie. 4/9 = 0.444(infinity repeat - or an estimation of what it should be since 4/9 is 4/9 and connot actually be divided to give a quantity), and at what is the limit of 1/x as we get bigger, the answer is 0(in other words we will get close to zero, but never reach it). It's easier to use finite answers to express results. Infinity is just a tool that we use to explain things that it would take forever to explain.

And, computer calculations are normal calculations based on equations that just keep correcting the value for each term of the equation that the computer uses. The equations are sums of fractions andd look like equation to be approximated = 1- (x^3/3!) + (X^6/6!) - (X^9/9!) ...... We give it an estimation stoppng point (like say the hundreths place) to give us an answer to that point, and it only uses the terms that give us values within that decimal range +1 place for round off error. Read a Calculus Book, it will explain this method for you, and asist you in its understanding if you are confused. Also note that computers can only add and subtract. Everything must be simplified for them to that.

Not we are all on the same level of applicable background knowledge

Ierrellus

PJPSYCHO:

An amazing response! You state that questions about the design convey no meaning, yet they produce opinions in readers! You find no validity in the presentation of the design, yet you advise on how to make it more meaningful!

One question: What do the design, the alarm sounds of Vervet monkies and the practicality of mathematical infinity have in common?

Ierrellus

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

snatchbalance:

Your interpretation of the different sounds of the Vervet monkies is almost word-for-word the explanation given in the book I was reading!

Ierrellus