FORGIVE
MY IGNORANCE,
BUT IS NOT EVERYTHING
NOMINAL? (...)
MY IGNORANCE,
BUT IS NOT EVERYTHING
NOMINAL? (...)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive:
-
▼
2008
(46)
-
▼
November
(24)
- Headquarters
- Die alte Battersea Brücke: Nocturne-Blau und Gold
- A few words from George....
- Joan with Broken Sword?
- Public Fun
- Bomb
- ONWARD!
- Verso
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE, BUT IS NOT EVERYTHING NOMINA...
- Photograph: Suicide by Edouard Manet, a painting o...
- Media has Brighton Biennial Blinkers
- {painting}
- Information regarding first edition
- £!
- Taster
- Go
- Soon
- Soon
- Soon
- Soon
-
▼
November
(24)
7 comments:
You can say that every thing has a nominal value. However, we do not treat the value of any one thing nominally; but measure its worth as context-dependent.
Plato's Cave
are we enlightened?
Shame. Shame and severe discredit on the philosopher who uses his knowledge as a virtue above all other experience.
"Philosophy does nothing but invent its own destruction"
Sociology
Politics
Psychology.
Burn Schiller's maxims for tea.
"If we take it down a level then everyone can reach us. And we can reach everyone"
Riff Clytard
'Shame and severe discredit on the philosopher who uses his knowledge as a virtue above all other experience.'
Good point - (If I am reading your post correctly) I say 'Knowledge can never transcend experience to the true philosopher.'
But then of course that depends on how one defines 'knowledge' -and thus ramblings such as these continue...
I request more visual imput on this blog - how is the participating blogger to put a visual point accross - or start a new thread when as far as I can make out - and please correct me if I am wrong - it appears that only Mocksim and L.L.Ugo can/are providing doomsbury starting points? Tja, well at least there are a few more comments than previously.
As you wish.
Looking for the key, the philosopher walks into a room whereupon he finds a man, woman and child. Introducing himself, he asks what we he believes to be a simple question; "I am the philosopher. I am looking for the key, do you have it?". Neither man, woman nor child seem to acknowledge one another, all three with their eyes fixed on the philosopher. Soon the man gets up to address the philosopher. "I am history, philosopher. I can tell you where you are from." Seemingly without thought the philosopher pulls a gun from his coat pocket. He takes aim and quickly shoots the man in between the eyes. The man falls back into his chair with his eyes open, still looking at the philosopher. After a moment the woman stands up to speak to the philosopher. "I am the present, it is through me that you exist." Once again, the philosopher takes aim and shoots. This time his aim is slightly askew and he shoots the woman through her mouth. Still, the intent is affective and she falls back dead into her seat. The philosopher turns towards the child, already taking aim with his gun. The child remains seated seemingly indifferent to the philosophers act of violence.A short while passes and the philosopher begins to feel the weight of the gun, his arm begins to shake. Still the child does not move. Gritting his teeth, the philosopher changes hands with his gun for a moment but still the gun is to heavy and he quickly grabs the gun in between both hands. The child remains silent.A thought passes over the philosopher, he relaxes and shoots the seated child with as many bullets as are left in his gun. Feeling somewhat relieved, the philosophers puts the gun back in his coat pocket then standing to attention he addresses the three corpses: "I am your memory, in me you are no more." But no-one can hear.
What then? Are we to assume that the philosopher's proclamation falling on deaf ears is the end. Poor phil-oh so sorry-sophy. What then? Do we end with the philosopher's unanswered mantra?
Fine work regardless
Post a Comment