obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (07/12/87)
In article <9889@duke.cs.duke.edu>, mps@duke (Michael P. Smith) writes: >I know that I am sitting here, by this computer, wearing shorts, >holding this book in my hands, and so on. I know that FOL is complete >and compact, and higher-order logics are not. I know that whales are >mammals, that Great Britain has a monarch but France does not, that, >ounce-for-ounce, ice cream has more calories that carrots, that I >might be wrong about any of these things. But I don't think I am, >else I wouldn't say that I know them. I, of whom I know nothing, I know my eyes are open, because of the tears that pour from them unceasingly. I know I am seated, my hands on my knees, because of the pressure against my rump, against the soles of my feet, against the palms of my hands, against my knees. Against my palms the pressure is of my knees, but what is it that presses against my rump, a- gainst the soles of my feet? I don't know. My spine is not supported. I mention these details to make sure I am not ly- ing on my back, my legs raised and bent, my eyes closed. [...] Ah yes, I am truly bathed in tears. They gather in my beard and from there, when it can hold no more--no, no beard, no hair either, it is a great smooth ball I carry on my should- ers, featureless, but for the eyes, of which only the sockets remain. And were it not for the distant testimony of my palms, my soles, which I have not yet been able to quash, I would gladly give myself the shape, if not the consistency, of an egg, with two holes no matter where to prevent it from burst- ing, for the consistency is more like that of mucilage. [...] --Samuel Beckett _The Unnameable_ I'd like to throw in, as I'm wont to do, one major plug for the works of Samuel Beckett. His novels can be very difficult reading, but they are profound, sardonic, blackly humorous, and--the reason that I am posting this here--touch to the core of many philosophical problems. His works are open to multitudes of interpretations as few others have ever been. For example, critics sometimes like to read _Watt_ as if it is about a world where logical positivism is *really* true. There is no crueler way to harpoon a theory than that. One sometimes feel that Beckett is writing those very silences that Wittgenstein ordered us to engage in at the end of _Tractatus_. I personally believe that Watt's analysis of the "dog feeding" problem he runs into in the novel is a required tour de force for anyone interested in appreciating how--or even that or whether--science works. (Curiously enough, "Wattgenstein" is one of the few interpretations-- perhaps the only one--that Beckett has ever expressly commented on. He denied it.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I should mention .... that I say aporia without knowing what it means.
mps@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael P. Smith) (07/12/87)
In article <8707120611.AA22416@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <9889@duke.cs.duke.edu>, mps@duke (Michael P. Smith) writes: >>I know that I am sitting here, by this computer, wearing shorts, >>holding this book in my hands, and so on. ... > > I, of whom I know nothing, I know my eyes are open, because > of the tears that pour from them unceasingly. I know I am > seated, my hands on my knees ... > --Samuel Beckett _The Unnameable_ > >ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I should add, so everyone may get the joke, that both Beckett and I were parodying Descartes in the first of his "Meditations on First Philosophy." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A good man is not required to have read every book or diligently mastered everything taught in school." R. Descartes Michael P. Smith ARPA mps@duke.cs.duke.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------