karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/22/90)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >Reality is independent of perception. This may or may not be an accurate statement. But pragmatically speaking, it doesn't matter whether reality is or isn't independent of perception, because we cannot see what reality *is*; we cannot supersede our perceptions. Sorry, couldn't resist this one. Flaming is in the eye of the beholder, because people perceive it differently from each other. And perceptions about flaming are even more subjective than perceptions of, say, an apple. An apple doesn't need semantics to describe it; it can be seen. Flaming does. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/25/90)
In article <1990Feb22.012655.5065@everexn.uucp>, Karen Valentino writes: > Flaming is in the eye of the beholder, because people perceive it > differently from each other. Only to an extent. While John Doe might perceive a posting by Jane Roe saying "John Doe is the most brilliant, kindly individual on Usenet!" as a flame, it's unlikely. And if he responded to it as tho it were a flame, he'd make himself look foolish and likely get some pretty sharp replies, both posted and mailed. But I'll agree that a statement such as "This article is totally inaccurate" might be seen as a flame by some and not by others. Jeff -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles