> s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> [snip a dialogue constructed to p[rove a point, ie, one that really
> proves nothing at all. ;-) the point to be rpoven appears at the end, thus:
>

>> 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.

>
> Nice riff on George Berkely. He posited God as the Someone who is always
> around, so that the world does in fact exist even when you and me aren't
> there to "impose a context." ...

>> B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
>> ballerina. Its lovely. Now pay up.

>
> I think that this is the key statement of B, and one which wins him
> the argument almost by chance due to his wording.
>
> He states that there is one thing, but then qualifies this one thing:
> "a clay statue of a ballerina".  He is free to do so, because he is
> making the statement, and thus imposing the "point of view" on the
> situation.

>On Sep 18, 1:19 pm, John J wrote:

>> The one bloke said he saw a ballerina for purposes of quotidian, IOW
>> conventional conversation. Of course there was no ballerina, but a
>> figure one might call symbol of a ballerina. In the end, reduction
>> removes the social meaning of the whole thing. It was clay all the time.
>> Or perhaps it was dog poop.

>
>Thats fine. Just substitute "ballerina" for "figure" then. The clay is
>there all the time. The figure for some of the time. Both different
>things with different properties.

> On Sep 18, 4:48 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

>> s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> [snip a dialogue constructed to prove a point, ie, one that really
>> proves nothing at all. ;-) the point to be proven appears at the end, thus:
>>

>>> 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.

>> Nice riff on George Berkely. He posited God as the Someone who is always
>> around, so that the world does in fact exist even when you and me aren't
>> there to "impose a context."

>
> Very interesting. I think there might be a view point similar to that, ...

> On Sep 18, 5:06 pm, arkestra gmail.com> wrote:

>>> B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a

>> For example, if it were a pitcher of milk, instead of a clay statue of
>> a ballerina, then I do not think a similar argument could be made so
>> that there are both "a pitcher of milk" and "milk" on the table
>> without changing anything about their placement/orientation.

>
> Well, I guess you could analagously pour the pitcher's contents into a
> bottle. Then the same milk would be on the table, but the "pitcher of
> milk" would be gone. Because the milk was there originally, the "milk"
> and "pitcher of milk" must have been different things given that one
> has survived while the other has not. Regards, Sigmund.

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:18:02 -0700 (PDT), s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
>

>>On Sep 18, 1:19

>A Situation nothing.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:18:02 -0700 (PDT), s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
>>

>>>On Sep 18, 1:19 pm, John J wrote:

>>>> The one bloke...

>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.

>Josip Almasi wrote:

>> Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
>> (attributes).

>
>Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
>in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
>course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
>nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
>objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?

> s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> [snip a dialogue constructed to p[rove a point, ie, one that really
> proves nothing at all. ;-) the point to be rpoven appears at the end, thus:
>

>> 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.

>
> Nice riff on George Berkely. He posited God as the Someone who is always
> around, so that the world does in fact exist even when you and me aren't
> there to "impose a context." ...