[MD] Ever redefining self

[Khaled Alkotob]

SA
One more thing to ad to the mix is language. As language evolve with
time, meanings change and as things get translated from one language to
another, things change.

In some sense we are trying to box and pigeon hole the undefinable. I had
stated this before, Until calculus came along, certain calculations ( the
instant of change) could not be defined.

Algebra and geometry were fine for static calculations, but when it came
to define the dynamic at any certain time on an ever changing curve,
calculus was needed.

I see the same thing needed to help us define the moment. i don't know
what that is. Maybe you just know it. Back to persig's "can't define
quality but you know it's there".

Numbers are fixed, those values are defined, and because of that we can
move on with our definitions/calculations. Social values, the self and so
on are so dynamic, that you need a derivative of the derivative to get to
the answer.






[SA]
>      Gene, this is the 'ever defining self'.  My wife
> is a history teacher, and she says in history
> interpretation changes history all the time.  In a
> time in history when many interpretations, by
> historians, are given for an event, the more
> interpretations the more probable the event did happen
> in such a such a way.  Then you have archaeology and
> its' interpretation of the same historic event, which
> could either support or disagree with such an event or
> any details in the event.  Then somebody comes along
> and finds a document from the time period that has a
> different interpretation of an event, such as the
> Judas papers found in Egypt in recent decades.  These
> Judas writings have such a unique bend on the times of
> Jesus, that any such analyzing of the event of Judas
> in relationship to Jesus stirs controversy.  Then
> science steps in when many question what evidence do
> we have that the Judas papers are more correct than
> the traditional perspective written in the books in
> the King James version of the Bible.  For science to
> be able to make these writings more highly probable
> than the King James version would be difficult indeed,
> and yet what if other documents surface, or even
> something else found in the dirt that changes this
> speculative event, more speculative by some than
> others.  
>