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.