[MD] Was Zeno correct?

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The squirrel's model is A reflection of Zeno's paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

The Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges discusses Zeno’s paradoxes many
times in his work, showing their relationship with infinity. Borges also
used Zeno’s paradoxes as a metaphor for some situations described by Kafka.
Jorge Luis Borges traces, in an essay entitled "Avatars of the Tortoise",
the many recurrences of this paradox in works of philosophy. The successive
references he traces are Agrippa the Skeptic, Thomas Aquinas, Hermann Lotze,
F.H. Bradley and William James.[32]


Borges was aware of zeno's paradoxes, and found the congruence in James's
work.

Think of the arrow-model, it is a linear model, an infinite number of
sequence's
therefore the arrow can never reach his target.

Take the linear model in your mind and bend it into a concentric circulair
model

The hiding squirrel can never be found because of zeno's paradox, the hunter
will never reach him.

so the squirrel model preceides the arrowmodel, James bended the path of the
arrow, and multiplied the routine.

So movement was not an illusion,nor absolute ,i.e relative but he did not
find the word for it.

Needless to say that Zeno's movement is an illusion projection was invalid
I need to find it in Borges work or letters maybe.



2 models in one
1 is the tortoise(the hunter)
2 is the arrow,(the squirrel)
combined they will never meet, its impossible.
James only needed to bend the arrow's path to a concentric model.
Fucking genious

You nailed the squirrel , DMB.


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