Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Aug 2005 10:40:37 -0400
In article <lspIe.60126$mC.23648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jce <defaultuser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dcsvgi$np4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> jce <defaultuser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Seeing that the recipient says what was received was a view of the world
>> how do you come to the conclusion that it is '... fact that he received a
>> grain of sand'? Are there reasons for aligning your belief with that of
>> the giver... or are you asserting a sort of 'credo' and should it be left
>> (extra credit: compare and contrast the exchange of:
>> A: 'I gave B a grain of sand.'
>> B: 'I received from A a view of the world.'
>> ... with Kurosawa's film 'Rashomon'. Use both sides of the posting if
>Here is your text:
>"... and there lies the rub. Take the grain of sand example, once again,
>in the sense of giving and getting: if one can see a World in it then what
>does one receive when one is given such a grain?"
>Your statement asserts that 'One can see a world in *it*' ..I think *it*
>refers to a grain of sand.
That is correct; what I refer to is the that-which-was-given. My question
is 'for what reason(s) do you say a particular thing happened?'
>I don't believe it is either safe to presume or
>inferr or assume that one receives an absolute "view of the world" [such as
>would be found in space] - using your description of events not solely the
>descriptions provided by A and B.
I don't recall saying anything about an absolute.
>A says I gave sand.
>B says I received a view.
>DD says a piece of sand with a view was given by A to B.
No. I said 'A said I gave... B said I received'.
>It seems that in
>describing the problem you have "asserted" would the situation was. The
>answer would have been *mightily* changed had you reversed your statement of
>events - even it is a little less poetic.
I tried to follow chronology (rather difficult to receive something before
it is given, last I looked) but I do not see your distinction; see below.
>......to see a grain of sand in a view then what does one receive when
>presented with a view.......
> The act of observation has broken the analogy.
I am not sure I am making sense of this in the manner you intend. Using
the reversal you suggest:
B: 'I received a view of the World from A.'
A: 'I gave a grain of sand to B.'
.... the question still appears to stand: Seeing that the recipient says
what was received was a view of the world how do you come to the
conclusion that it is '... fact that he received a grain of sand'?
- Prev by Date: Re: Reviving REMARKS
- Next by Date: Re: Various "debuggin" tools (for IBM mainframe development)
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code