To continue the discussion from the Deception thread, since it is toooo long to load:

-- lurker (anon@y.mous), February 06, 2000

Answers

The original article reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode where a whole society existed inside a little 4-inch cube. Those inside, though, had no idea that was the case - to them, they were living perfectly normal lives.

At the end of the show, Pickard said something to the effect of "It makes one wonder if somehow, somewhere, *we* aren't sitting in a cube on someone else's desk."

Well, that's my deep-thought for the week. Now back to human tacos.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 06, 2000.

Hey, Steve, to get even more completely off-topic (if there is one), check out horsehaven.org Calgary wins again!

Just kidding. I went to school in Edmonton and love the city.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), February 06, 2000.

I won't hold it against you - for long. (BG) I have two relatives living in Calgary and I even speak to them occasionally when I'm forced to, so I'm not biased.

Horse Haven looks like a great idea. I hope they can make it by with just donations. Something like that will take a lot of cash. Maybe they should ask Jane Stewart and the Liberals for a grant. By the sounds of it, they wouldn't even have to tell her where its going.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 06, 2000.

A 4 inch cube, a 4 foot cubical, or a 40inch TV screen. Perhaps for all of us, our horizon extends not far from our immediate interest.

I wonder just how far the 'immediate' can extend?

Can great things ever be 'present' to mere humans?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 06, 2000.

For what it's worth, I think we (denizens of the original thread) may just stay there - it's length keeps the riff-raff out!

Trolls seems to inhabit the tops of threads, where their attention span is not a detriment.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 06, 2000.

Thank you Bemused. Well said. And I'd thought I'd post a copy of my last post in the real thread on this topic here:

Lurker:

You might want to check your computer. Sadly the "OT to STEVE MEYERS only, on HEMP" thread has overtaken our thread's size in since its very recent start (its about 912k to download vs our 743k at this time) and seems to be going strong.

As an asside, and I really don't want to pollute our thread (may be Deception 2 can be used for a few of these off topic points), but the fact that a discussion about drugs attracted more interest than a discussion to search for the Truth says a lot about the world and in particular our country (since from the thread it appears most posters are discussion the topic from an American context).

So lets not have the record state that a discussion on drugs outdid a discussion on the search for the Truth. I don't think I could ever let that happen.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), February 06, 2000.

Lets try that again.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), February 06, 2000.

Well, here I am! I'm not talking about anything other than Truth. If you're interested in letting others in to your discussion, or just seeking to regain tactical-thread-length-dominance, then just respond to my post above. *I'm* not a troll. Or at least not intentionally.

Maybe it wasn't clear that I *was* talking about truth; since I talked about perspectives and horizons.

OK, then inform *me*. I admit to being relatively well educated; and an idiot. That means that I'm sure I'll understand what you say. And it means I appreciate whatever clear light that can be shone into the dark corners of my mind.

Please shine away. .

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 06, 2000.

Tim,

A 4 inch cube, a 4 foot cubical, or a 40inch TV screen. Perhaps for all of us, our horizon extends not far from our immediate interest.

I wonder just how far the 'immediate' can extend? Can great things ever be 'present' to mere humans?

Well, since everything we experience is just a representation of reality anyway, then the "immediate" can extend almost infinitely, and just about any concept can be "present". Accuracy is going to be inversely related to the size/greatness of the concept in question, though. We're getting pretty vague here, why don't you expand on what you had in mind?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 06, 2000.

better?

-- Italics (italics@italics.italics), February 06, 2000.

Oh yes. Thank you for the response. I'm not sure what I had in mind. I guess I'm always interested in exploring ways in which we can expand our perspective(s); especially since most of us are preoccupied with a fairly small set of concerns.

Do you think that the 'bigger' things are always harder to understand than the 'small' stuff? Some people might say that they have an easier time understanding their company or perhaps the scientific laws of the cosmos (physics) than they do understanding themselves or their families.

It seems to me that sometimes big things are easier to understand and sometimes small matters are easier. For instance, I gain a great deal of self-understanding by reflecting upon politics and history in general. But I have also gained a great deal of historical and political insight by thinking about and looking closely at my self and my life..

What do you think? Is it the 'size' of matters which make them difficult to comprehend or some other thing? Or size and some other thing?

Also: Just what do we mean by the 'size' of matters? Importance? Spacial extent? Temporal extent? If importance, then just what is 'importance'? And why should important or vital things be difficult? Since they are ubiquitous or vital to existance then one might think that those are the things to which we are by our nature most suited to understand.

This has always been an interesting issue for me. I love to get whatever insights on it I can. Thanks for your time.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 07, 2000.

I think the 'size' or scope of an idea doesn't have much of an impact on it, and you can gain perspective by drawing parallels between your experiences and 'the big picture', and the opposite way, too. The main problem is complexity and lack of easy to define parameters, at least for me.

And I do agree that the most 'important' things tend to end up being the easiest, or at least easiest to understand. That's why often you'll see big concepts in the sciences have parallels to easy to understand everyday situations once they're reduced (fractal seashell pattern, e=mc^2, many other examples...)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@people.com), February 09, 2000.

I agree. Important patterns do seem to have a prolific ability to reproduce themselves on many levels.

With an almost symphonic medley of thematic variations, these patterns seem not only to continually generate more of themselves in ever more creative extentions, but also to resonate, producing harmonies of interrelationship that, I think, is 'association' itself.

Two vast, infinitely branching trees. Order appears to reproduce itself through beauty, perhaps. Chaos appears to have a life of its own, as well. I consider 'the political' as being the heart of their meeting ground. But what could we call the fruit of their union? But is there even room for new life to arise between these two mighty pillars?

Bemused: I think I'm a bit poetically mused myself today. Although I'm far more mused at myself then at any other.

What do you think of these things?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 10, 2000.

Whoops. I think those harmonies of relationship *are* association itself. Plurality is often a difficult issue for me to grasp, as well. 8-)

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 10, 2000.

Hey, where'd everybody go?

My grammar was a bit rough on that last substantial post, but was it really *that* bad?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 14, 2000.