[MD] Was Zeno correct?

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

To use the words of Pirsig, good,good,good,....good good,good.
Zeno was a paradox-stitcher
Yes,Dave, what a superb abstraction this is,thanks!
you rock , dude.

(then he nailed her)oops.

2010/11/9 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
>
> dmb chimes in with an edited rerun:
>
> Since hammers so loudly and conspicuously hit their targets, I wonder if
> Heidegger picked the image as an intentional parody of Zeno's paradox. I
> think the paradox should be used to get at the difference between the
> continuous flow of time as we experience it and the discrete increments with
> which we conceptualize and measure time. (This paradox basically says that
> motion is an illusion, because a loosed arrow will never reach its target.
> And it never gets there because it travels half of the distance in half the
> time, and then half again and again forever.) In other words, the point of
> this absurdity is not to deny motion an an illusion. The point is to expose
> the limits of our conceptualizations.
>
> This "problem" or paradox arises only because of the way we divide and
> measure things and the guy with an arrow through his head will tell you that
> arrows certainly DO reach their targets. If he can't tell you, it's only
> because he has an arrow through his head. The point (pun intended) of this
> idea - or at least one of the points - is to say there is an important
> distinction between engagement and reflection, between direct experience and
> the concepts that follow. (Although somehow it seems that it's possible to
> be so engaged even in reflection. It seems you can lose yourself in thought
> the way you can lose yourself in motorcycle repair or hammering or painting
> or anything else.) I'm thinking Heidegger picked the image of hammering, at
> least partly, because its so repetitive. Nails are fasteners and they're
> used to construct things. That's what concepts do too.
>
> "That was why the Quality that Phaedrus had arrived at in the classroom had
> seemed so close to Plato's Good. Plato's Good was TAKEN from the
> rhetoricians. Phaedrus searched, but could find no previous cosmologists who
> had talked about the Good. That was from the Sophists. The difference was
> that Plato's Good was a fixed and eternal and unmoving Idea, whereas for the
> rhetoricians it was not an Idea at all. The Good was not a FORM of reality.
> It was reality itself, ever changing, ultimately unknowable in any kind of
> fixed, rigid way." paperback Bantam ZAMM 342
>
> Thus, Zeno explained to his lover through logic and math and passionate
> kisses galore how cupid's arrow could never reach his heart.
>
> Then he nailed her.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser