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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (9943)	4/20/1998 6:12:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

>In some sense our surest knowledge of what is absolute is contained in relations, mathematical and logical. < That's the way it works practically. Yes. But theoretically/philosophically, there is to me something lastingly not pretty about being trying to frame the cosmos from the inside out. By constructing relations outward from the most robust axioms available. But they are still axioms. A is A. Now where did that really measurably get us? "Whaddyou mean us, Paleface?" I kick the rock, and my toe does hurt. Ok fine. But because that's real enough for government work, is it real? Really <cough>? "No distortions of sense and measurement" That's it to a "t". As far as Berkeley goes, without sensory input, what am I? Granted there's a circular trap here, but I have trouble conceiving of a form of human thought which is not totally framed by the sensory. Even our beautiful abstract mathematics (geometry!) are understood by the brain's capacity for visual auditory analogy. I dig geometry because in my mind's eye I can see it. Or enough of it to say "OK" to the premises and build from there into the not-so-visualizable. But for me, at this place in my intellectual career, I'm stuck on a disconnect between the Sensible and the Real. Where DID that rabbit come from, anyway?