Below is a dialogue arguing that traditionals view of objects,
endurance, perdurance in philosophy and logic are incorrect. I would
be interested to hear your comments, whether you see flaws in its
argument or what the extensions of it may be. Sigmund.
----------------------------
The Clay Ballerina
----------------------------
>> A and B are standing next to a table, on which stands a clay statue of a ballerina that A has just fashioned.
A) Ok, I bet you a drink that you can't tell me how many things there
are on this table.
B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
ballerina. Its lovely. Now pay up.
A) I certainly won't - your answer was wrong.
B) Not unless your hiding something it wasn't - and that'd be
cheating.
A) I'm not hiding anything, but you were still wrong. I'll prove it.
>> A quickly picks up clay, rolls into ball, and throws it back onto the table.
A) Ok, so is that the same piece of clay as before?
B) Yes, of course it is. That doesn't change anything - there's still
one thing on the table.
A) Then tell me - where is the ballerina now?
B) She's gone. Obviously. You rolled her up into a ball!
A) So the ballerina has been destroyed, while the clay remains?
B) Well, yes, clearly.
A) Do you therefore agree that the ballerina and the clay had
different properties? One could be destroyed by being rolled up, while
the other couldn't?
B) Evidently so, if one is now gone and the other is still there...
A) And that the clay and statue are therefore distinct things?
B) Yes, yes, I suppose so. Get to the point will you, I want my drink.
A) The point is that we are agreed that the piece of clay and the
ballerina are different things. And we we also surely agreed that both
the clay and the ballerina were in existence when we made our bet,
right?
B) Well yes, I suppose...
A) Then there could not therefore, as you wagered, have been just one
thing on the table.
B) But, the clay and the ballerina were the same thing!
A) Nope, we agreed only a minute ago that the clay and the ballerina
had different properties, and were therefore different things. I'll
have a shot of whisky please.
B) So there were two things on the table then, occupying the same
space?
A) No.
B) What?
A) Well we have actually already spotted three. You identified a
statue, and I've pointed out another two since - a piece of clay and a
ballerina, all with different properties.
B) So there were three?
A) More. Maybe an infinite amount. In fact, the limiting factor on the
number of things that were overlapping on that ballerina shaped area
of space seems to be the number of contexts in which you and I could
imagine that bit of space.
B) Then why the hell did I only say there was one then? You're telling
me the context I picked was wrong!
A) No I'm not. I've just pointed out that you were mistaken to _only_
recognize one. But notice how quickly you changed to another when I
rolled the clay up! You did it with incredible flexibility and speed.
B) But, look, your logic would mean that if noone is there to impose
that context, well... then there wouldn't be a thing there at all!
A) Exactly.
