Re: Recognizing Absurdity

	Duration: 618 seconds Upload Time: 07-05-28 06:00:49 User: azrienoch :::: Favorites
Description: The Postmodernism Generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo (Scroll down to the bottom -- it describes what the site does there.)
Comments
scoutie111 ::: Favorites Are you now saying, "We can only have perceived comprehensibilities (making plural now) of a world which is not ultimately comprehensible...or ultimately understandable?" 07-05-29 12:00:07 _____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Well before we go on... answer me this please:) a) Why is a world without God absurd? b) Do you agree with this: "As the world (worlds) are comprehended this excludes the idea of an "absurd world" because absurdity is incomprehensible" 07-05-29 12:05:48 _____________________________________________________
scoutie111 ::: Favorites Let's leave point A aside from now. I think this only sidetracks us. On Point B: - Will reword to clarify/simplify...Are you saying: "As humans comprehend the world, this excludes the idea of an incomprehensible world." (?) 07-05-29 12:49:57 _____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Well yeah:) To reverse the sentense. Would it be possible to label a world as "incomprehensible" when perceived comprehensibility happens everyday ? (This is not to say that there is only one meaning to comprehend!) 07-05-29 13:11:49 _____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Also Scoutie, I have answered a lot of your questions in the red-jacket -video... dont know if you have gotten a email...? anyway, they go well with the discussion we are having now:) 07-05-29 13:26:55 _____________________________________________________
scoutie111 ::: Favorites Got a challenge for you SD ;-) Would you give it a go? Try arguing AGAINST this statement (i.e., why or how this statement may NOT be so)... "As humans have perceived comprehension(s) of the world, this excludes the idea of an incomprehensible world." 07-05-29 13:47:04 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Yes yes, I know what you want me to say: You want me to say that since the world is incomprehensible, humans only THINK they get meaning out of it... since meaning is all context, because text has no meaning in its self, the assumption that any comprehension of the world is possible is invalid. 07-05-29 14:03:48 _____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites BUT. You didnt send us Context! It was text that we read, and we comprehended the text (later came context) almost the same way... Proof: It wasnt text that prior to the keyword (shiftworker) was dead, but in fact, it was the Context that was dead while the text was alive... This is why you have said many times that we didnt have the context i order to make carcadian meaningful. : The context was dead! Now if both text and context were dead we would have been in a lot of trouple:) 07-05-29 14:09:17 _____________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Also. I think you are forgetting that if you are right... if text is dead, then really it is the end of Deconstruction because it is text that undergoes deconstruction, not context! 07-05-29 14:11:11 _____________________________________________________
StevenErnest ::: Favorites You guyz and galz are fascinating! I get a headache following this, but it's worth it. ^_^ 07-05-29 17:00:03 _____________________________________________________