![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirAd Mundo Exteriore,
Warning: Tari will proceed to be incomprehensible and probably quite inane.
Just because we perceive only shades of gray does not mean black and white do not exist. There are darker grays which are nearer to black, and lighter grays nearer to white. Perhaps no black is ideally black, no white ideally white, but the "forms" of black and white exist on a Platonic level; they are not purely imaginary.
It's also an issue of perspective. At a far enough distance, any spectrum becomes a boundary, and at a close enough view, the vice versa applies. Regardless of whether distinctions truly exist or not, it is ridiculous to go to the antithesis and claim all is identical and interchangeable. (Been playing with the gradients too long on Photoshop, yes.)
Nevertheless, Darwin's focus is microevolutionary (gradualism has that tendency) and his perspective suits his argument. (What you thought the black and white was a metaphor for good and evil? Well, it once was, but now I'm talking about how to define a species.) And whether you say that distinction has a pure noumenal existence (the word is "noumenal", right?) or that it is merely a tool for empirical analysis, the concept of distinction and boundary is still necessary, neh? Or else we might as well give up on language altogether and speak an ultimate form of Newspeak where everything can be described with a single world. (Sounds kind of like Tao.)
Out of curiosity, though I'm on a complete tangent, what would that word be? In context of 1984 that is. (Too bad "Big Brother" is two words.) I'll find it really hilarious if the Party whittled down the English vocabulary to simply "good". Ironic, yet heavy-handed. Perhaps that's why Orwell never followed up on that particular speculation. Or did he? Haven't read anything of his besides the two major novels about Communism and a couple of short stories.
Anyway, species are a taxonomic necessity, even if we have a case-by-case system for determining them, without a consistent scheme for classifcation. Aristotle is probably rolling in his grave.
Oh, please, if you're planning to ride the subways during rush hour, please do not put on heavy perfume or scented makeup. You will sweat, and anyone within a foot of you will smell it. If they happen to get nauseous easily, like me, then they'll inwardly curse you and try not so very hard to stop themselves from tripping you on the stairs.
...Tari
Warning: Tari will proceed to be incomprehensible and probably quite inane.
Just because we perceive only shades of gray does not mean black and white do not exist. There are darker grays which are nearer to black, and lighter grays nearer to white. Perhaps no black is ideally black, no white ideally white, but the "forms" of black and white exist on a Platonic level; they are not purely imaginary.
It's also an issue of perspective. At a far enough distance, any spectrum becomes a boundary, and at a close enough view, the vice versa applies. Regardless of whether distinctions truly exist or not, it is ridiculous to go to the antithesis and claim all is identical and interchangeable. (Been playing with the gradients too long on Photoshop, yes.)
Nevertheless, Darwin's focus is microevolutionary (gradualism has that tendency) and his perspective suits his argument. (What you thought the black and white was a metaphor for good and evil? Well, it once was, but now I'm talking about how to define a species.) And whether you say that distinction has a pure noumenal existence (the word is "noumenal", right?) or that it is merely a tool for empirical analysis, the concept of distinction and boundary is still necessary, neh? Or else we might as well give up on language altogether and speak an ultimate form of Newspeak where everything can be described with a single world. (Sounds kind of like Tao.)
Out of curiosity, though I'm on a complete tangent, what would that word be? In context of 1984 that is. (Too bad "Big Brother" is two words.) I'll find it really hilarious if the Party whittled down the English vocabulary to simply "good". Ironic, yet heavy-handed. Perhaps that's why Orwell never followed up on that particular speculation. Or did he? Haven't read anything of his besides the two major novels about Communism and a couple of short stories.
Anyway, species are a taxonomic necessity, even if we have a case-by-case system for determining them, without a consistent scheme for classifcation. Aristotle is probably rolling in his grave.
Oh, please, if you're planning to ride the subways during rush hour, please do not put on heavy perfume or scented makeup. You will sweat, and anyone within a foot of you will smell it. If they happen to get nauseous easily, like me, then they'll inwardly curse you and try not so very hard to stop themselves from tripping you on the stairs.
...Tari
