Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:36:59 +0100
Ken Clark wrote:
> As far as not being able to see ourselves as others see us, if we
> wanted
> to go to the trouble we could monitor ourselves with camera equipment
> long
> enough and in enough situations to get as good an idea as anyone else
> has.
Seeing you as a camera sees you is not exactly what Robert Burns had in
mind. If you kiss the camera on its lens, I doubt it will have much of a
reaction. But hopefully your kiss will have some effect on a human
kissee
who will see you as something more than an electronically encoded
apparition.
The point is you can never know what it's liked to be kissed by you, any
more than a physicist can know both the exact position and velocity of
an
electron. Despite your faith in ultimate knowledge, there are some
intellectual "never knows" built into the structure of the universe. Or
so
Goedel's Theorem and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle say.
But, all is not lost. Diana points to a form of understanding beyond the
scientifically intellectual, the Mu understanding, thinking without
thought, the aesthetic experience of Dynamic Quality, beyond words but
real.
Have you experienced such an understanding? Need I ask?
Platt
Catch 44: Never say never.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST