Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Justin Davis: "Re: Is there a general solution for x = A + Not A ???"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:01:06 -0600
The best example I can think of, offhand. I spent my summers as
a child on my grandparents farm and was allowed free reign.
Therefore, this poem by a master of natural language, for me,
actually bursts with meaning . It has had a similar effect on
hundreds of thousands of readers who did not have my exact same
experience but who brought experiences of their own to its
interpretation. It is a paragon of precision exactly because it
relies on something other than a single literal interpretation.
http://www.bigeye.com/fernhill.htm
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: Justin Davis: "Re: Is there a general solution for x = A + Not A ???"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
