Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 73999" data-attributes="member: 544">[USER=347]@Mentalatte[/USER]The real challenge, the one I should have asked?...is this:I am saying the vertiginous question is like &quot;why does a square have four sides?&quot;, a question that, when pursued, gave us geometry. Or like zero; a concept we didn&#039;t have, then we invented it, and it opened up new worlds. So asking &quot;why this ghost?&quot; might, over enough time and enough threads, produce a new concept, a new tool, a new way of seeing.But here&#039;s the actual steel-test: What if the vertiginous question is structurally different from zero and the square? Zero and the square are about relations within a framework, geometry, number theory. The vertiginous question is about the framework itself, the fact of first-person indexicality. You can&#039;t step outside of &quot;thisness&quot; to measure it. Zero you can point to on a number line. &quot;Why am I this ghost?&quot;, there&#039;s no outside vantage. The shadow you&#039;re drawing? It&#039;s the shadow of a 4D object you&#039;re inside. You can&#039;t even see the whole shadow because you&#039;re standing on it.So the real question: Is there any historical precedent for a question like this? one about the irreducible first person? that actually led to a new concept? Or does it just spin forever because the questioner is the question?[ATTACH=full]14899[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schwarzwald, post: 73999, member: 544"] [USER=347]@Mentalatte[/USER] The real challenge, the one I should have asked?... is this: I am saying the vertiginous question is like "why does a square have four sides?", a question that, when pursued, gave us geometry. Or like zero; a concept we didn't have, then we invented it, and it opened up new worlds. So asking "why this ghost?" might, over enough time and enough threads, produce a new concept, a new tool, a new way of seeing. But here's the actual steel-test: What if the vertiginous question is structurally different from zero and the square? Zero and the square are about relations within a framework, geometry, number theory. The vertiginous question is about the framework itself, the fact of first-person indexicality. You can't step outside of "thisness" to measure it. Zero you can point to on a number line. "Why am I this ghost?", there's no outside vantage. The shadow you're drawing? It's the shadow of a 4D object you're inside. You can't even see the whole shadow because you're standing on it. So the real question: Is there any historical precedent for a question like this? one about the irreducible first person? that actually led to a new concept? Or does it just spin forever because the questioner is the question? [ATTACH type="full" alt="animesher.com_gif-saint-oniisan-1667091.gif"]14899[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread