Psypher,
Have I told you yet how glad I am that you've come out from the shadows and
are now here, sharing with us?
-Prof. Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: psypher <overload@fastmail.ca>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules
>> Thanks man. I could be wrong (I haven't checked) but I suspect that
>> "blue" at 475nm is pretty universal as that is the color of the
>> Hgamma line - which by a curious coincedence (Not!) just happens to
>> be the color of the sky. I tend to agree re attributes and
>> boundaries. Attributes are how we split things up into sets. People
>> with an inadequate grasp of set theory seem to assume that because
>> something falls into a particular set, that it is precluded from
>> being in other sets.... set boundaries are only world-boundaries for
>> the petty minded.
>
>...blue @ 475 nm is universal to a species that experiences the
>electromagnetic spectrum as we do. Beings with our sensory apparatus
>could hardly perceive a more salient stimulus than the colour of the
>sky, but a hypothetical being with a different apparatus for sensing
>and interpreting electromagnetic phenomena might not make the same
>distinction.
>...you don't really have to go all that far to encounter these
>theoretical beings. Certain tropically-dwelling people divide the
>colour realm into two or three simple categories and do not make
>meaningful distinctions outside these categories - eg. all our subtle
>distinctions of blue might fall into a batch set of "white colours"
>for 'em, and the sky loses its salience because they rarely see it
>through the canopy. [If anyone insists that I drag up references for
>this assertion and not base my argument on "certain tropically
>dwelling people" who shall remain nameless I'll do it].
>...Anyhow, taking that into account and looking at the Sapir-Whorf
>hypothesis (which proposes that linguistic structures form boundaries
>to what can be considered real - and yes, I'm paraphrasing) we can
>see that the distincions on which the statement
>
>blue=475 nm
>
>rests are based on a certain conceptualization of the world and the
>role of people in it.
>
>...it's the same with any other assertion of truth. Hopefully I
>addressed this concern with my reformulation in another post, please
>let me know.
>
>...as far as Spengler goes:
>
>'...we must first be clear as to what culture IS, what its relations
>are to visible history, to life, to soul, to nature, to intillect,
>what the forms of its manifestation are and how far these forms -
>peoples, tongues and epochs, battles and ideas, states and gods, arts
>and craft-works, sciences, laws, economic types and world ideas,
>great men and great events - may be accepted and pointed to as
>symbols.'
>
> -[sounds awfully virian to me]
>
>With all rigour I distinguish (as to form, not substance) the organic
>from the mechanical world-impression, the content of images from that
>of laws, the picture and symbol from the formula and the system, the
>instantly actual from the constantly possible, the intents and
>purposes of imagination according to plan from the intents and
>purposes of experience dissecting according to scheme; and -...- the
>domain of CHRONOLOGICAL from that of MATHEMATICAL number.'
>
> -[emphasis mine]
>
>'Number is the symbol of causal necessity. Like the conception of
>God, it contains the ultimate meaning of the world-as-nature. The
>existence of numbers may therefore be called a mystery, and the
>religious thought of every culture has felt their impress.'
>
> -[we certainly seem to have :) ]
>
>-psypher
>______________________________________________________________________
> http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians
>