Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (66591)	5/7/2006 9:23:26 AM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 361168

Well said! And what is the difference between the old and the new anyway? When, of old, you enjoyed the New Christie Minstrels, you experienced it in mind. When, newly, you enjoy the New Christie Minstrels, old version, you experience it in mind. It seems like the same, but it actually is two different "snapshots". But you might not even notice the difference! But on the other hand, whatever the old New Christie Minstrels were like is hard to say, because everybody's experience of them at that time was their own individual one, and now you have your new recollections of the old New Christie Minstrels, which are not exactly the same. And to complicate matters, you have your new recollections of the new New Christie Minstrels (if there is such thing), which seem to be different enough from your recollections of the old New Christie Minstrels as to suggest to you that the old New Christie Minstrels were better than the new New Christie Minstrels. But then again, it's hard to say that for sure, because the impressions are just in mind, and if you want to compare those impressions with those of others there is LANGUAGE in between and we all know that given words mean different specific things to different people. For example, if I use the word "dog", I might think of my old dog "Zappa", Sioux might think of Martin (or his new dog), an ageing teanager might use it to classify a less than perfectly comely female, and a fatigued person might use it to describe how tired they felt. In a conversation the differences come out through contextual detail, but communications between minds first have their automatic associations. All of which leads me to the single point: You never know what a single thing IS! You know lots ABOUT things but nothing of their ISNESS. In fact we don't know what ISNESS is. Descartes chickened out when he said the French equivalent of "I think therefore I am" because: 1) He did not know what "I" was 2) He did not know what "am" was 3) He did not know how "think" related to "am" and we do not really know what "I" is or what "is" is either, 99.75% or more of the time (whatever time is) Or for that matter the old New Christie Minstrels or the new New Christie Minstrels. Namaste! Jim