Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!ihnp1!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: shove THIS between your legs.
Message-ID: <832@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 13:51:47 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.832
Posted: Fri Mar  1 13:51:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 04:28:25 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 83



	The following is a private correspondance I have been 
having with one of the net denizens who shall remain unnamed.
I am convinced that a fair number of you see therapists, or have 
at least considered visiting some form of psychologist. In 
response to this I wish to offer a small amount of wisdom 
concerning one of the principle topics that you will encounter 
when dealing with said same, that of reality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



	And so it appears, that you believe that in order for 
something to exist, it must be observable. This I will agree 
with. I will add something to this that will probably explain 
this seemingly striking difference of opinion.

	There does not exist direct observation. Granted, the 
term is used to represent an observation that is easily made, or 
is obvious to the unaided human mind. The fact is is that even 
" direct " observation is actually transmitted by a series of 
neurons in the optic nerve, octipital lobe, etc. It is not 
direct, but rather a series of transfers involving all sorts of 
coding and protocol.

	This is also true for instruments that allow us to extend 
our powers of observation, such as telescopes, microscopes, etc.

	Now for the next question: Is something unobservable 
simply because we have not developed the technology necessary to 
build these extending instruments? Say, perhaps, an instrument 
that allowed us to detect sound indirectly by studying the effect 
that it has had on the surrounding environment? Tricky question, 
no?

	See, I believe you subscribe to the " absolutely relative "
where I can also see a " relatively absolute ". Combine the two 
to form one word: resolute. I think you will find that what this 
will mean to you is that although we do not have ways of 
observing absolute realities, we are developing the extentions to 
our senses that will allow us to percieve absolute reality with 
greater accuracy.

	The key concept here is resolution. It resolves the 
paradox of the contradictory sides of reality, both absolute and 
relative. ( did you notice how I used the word recursively? )

				Any comments?

						John

PS. Could you PLEASE stop repeating what I have just told you.
You can write them in that style, as long as you delete the 
direct quotations afterwards. Not only does it make the letter 
drag on rereading what I have already said, but it makes it look 
like you're grading me or something. If you really think it helps 
you to write by doing that, fine, but could you just delete the 
stuff written by me? There is no one else watching, there is no 
one else who needs to be familiarized with the context. I think 
it might also help you to see a central theme in this 
conversation, and not to spend alot of time going over details, 
but that is my opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

	So it has been since the beginning that psychologists and 
philosophers could not be put in the same room without them going 
for each other's throat. I believe that a great number of 
arguments are the result of these types of conflicts. If you see 
a therapist, you might wish to raise this topic. It can make for 
a very interesting discussion, and you may be able to influence 
the psychologist. You may have to be patient with him if he 
becomes overemotional, though.

		The untouchable  ----{ john williams }----

		< Sense out of nonsense >


	Digital Equipment Corperation
	The best there is to offer.