Constanze Witt schrieb:
> Tony articulates my gut response to Geoff's remark -- a wagon is NEVER, I'd
> say, just the sum of its components.
i agree and would never have said anything to the contrary except that the list
of wagon components was meant to respond to one of bjorn's metaphors:
> >> For example, if you take apart a wagon, what exist? The essence or soul of
> >> the wagon? Not likely.
i mean asking if a wagon has essence or soul is like the sound of one
hand clapping; interesting mind games, these koans, but the discussion seems to
be headed into some criticism of my basic response to an image or metaphor
used in an attempt to illustrate a point - i made a lame attempt at a joke about
only 57 chevys having soul, but avoided discussions of social/symbollic/ritual
or other interpreted or other inherent or implied or whatever meaning
because that seemed to just be a case of muddying an already obscure issue -
bjorn has responded that his "wagon" was just a metaphor, and i knew
that, but disagreed with both his premise and conclusions about "emptiness" and
whatever, so disagreed totally with the point he was trying to make -
geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|