Frankly, my Dear, I Don't Give a Dam*

*Rhett Butler's parting line to Scarlett O'Hara in the film Gone with the Wind in 1939 that outraged, and captivated moviegoers: While Margaret Mitchell spelled it damn in her novel Gone With the Wind, Miss Mitchell's spelling only added to the confusion. The more accurate spelling should have been dam. A dam is a small Indian coin, less in value to our penny. So Rhett was actually saying, "The value of my caring is not even worth, a penny." Is it not a pity how people, like many of the good folks that call themselves Christians, are so quick to condemn and tie you to the stake, before they know all of the facts. The coin was first introduced by Sher Shah Suri during his rule of India between 1540 and 1545.
It was very common for my grandmother to say,("I would not give a nickel"), in fact when I was a baby, she said it in front of me so many times, that Nickle was the first word I ever spoke. I lost everything' when brother Dan crashed the computer, all those old e-mails from Caren forever lost, I can't even remember what day I got the first one back from her, and changed my destiny in many ways. Now the computer is at my house. I decided my little brother needed closer supervision so I moved him in with me. I hope to be back on line in a day or two.

As for the moment, I still feel little more than the essence of a spirit trapped inside this computer, I'm like a pet gerbil in his cage, spinning my wheel for all to see. It suits my altruistic nature, to be always entertaining. However, because I'm known to no one, I have too much independence. I should be happy that there is little scrutiny, and no one to for me to answer, for any of my improprieties, but I am not, and so it goes. On the other hand I have no proof that any other blogger really exist, Pictures can be doctored, and voices faked, everything I know about you could be computer generated. Today, I found this conversation, that I can really relate to.

Loren Booda07.11.04, 00:16
wuliheronIndividual is a concept, a word, and words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Hence the answer to all your questions is yes and no or "what was the question exactly?"

To quote that immortal philosopher, Popeye, "I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam."

I can no more convince another of my individuality than I can prove the moon is made of cheese. In the final analysis, we are the belief makers, we give it all meaning or no meaning at all. Do I mean we as in the plural, or we as in the royal we? Only a specific context can illuminate that question. :0) Simple beauty in motion. Enjoy your (individual) universe. You know it so long as it remains whole, and free of analysis (an analytical statement in itself). Duality to me is a practical necessity of multifold beings.

Royce,

The quest is not a test, or to best, but to fest - the rest is jest.

Rader,
I have a hard enough time remembering the definition of the word "ontological" - it seems more a process than a state. Your descriptive contribution is helpful, considering this (individual) recipient; but will I retain it? I believe I am a physicist first because I rely upon my immediate physical environment and mental representations thereof rather than less grounded philosophical terms as a source of inspiration.

wuliheron07.11.04, 06:42
wuliheron Simple beauty in motion. Enjoy your (individual) universe. You know it so long as it remains whole, and free of analysis (an analytical statement in itself). Duality to me is a practical necessity of multifold beings.

Both are just tools, to be used and abused when we forget we can lay them down when we are done with them.

Rader07.11.04, 08:41
I have a hard enogh time remembering the definition of the word "ontological" - it seems more a process than a state.

If we observe from within the universe, it would seem that it is, but if you could observe from without, might it be a state.

Your descriptive contribution is helpful, considering this (individual) recipient; but will I retain it? I believe I am a physicist first because I rely upon my immediate physical environment and mental representations thereof rather than less grounded philosophical terms as a source of inspiration

Well let me try and help. While I can only be what I know, learned and believe, it is fully understood that you must be also be. If an individual evolved and was aware of being aware, of its "I", it would then posses an absolute truth. It would eventually know it is not alone in the world and come to understand that properties relations and change, are all part of what makes it aware of being aware. Hence understanding, those beliefs, of what is, with sufficient intellegence could describe with a mathematical formula, a individual atom, inidvidual human or its own universe. Write your formula. :wink:

loseyourname07.11.04, 19:49
Ultimately, if it comes down to it, I can demonstrate the meaning of something by actually pointing to it, without using any words whatsoever. That is what I mean by demonstrable. If you ask me the meaning of "gravity" and I push you off your chair that is a demonstration. What you mean by the use of such words I can only guess according the context you use them in.

"In this case, the context is a philosophical bulletin board. As for how we manage to communicate at all, apparently we are the belief makers, we give it all meaning or no meaning at all. That is, perhaps, the ultimate context.

"So what do you point to for an explanation of "context?" What about "meaning?"

What then is reality? In a world where only blogs exist, is not my twisted version of reality just as valid as the next person's?