Its rather eceptionalized, exemtplified, detoxified, detaxified, William Defoed that you should mention that Medusa. You see, every person who is familiar with such considerations has no doubt felt a deep mistrust of all idealism of this sort: just as often as knitted in a fabric of condominiums quite early convinced short of the eternal consistency, omnipresence, and fallibility of the laws of nature. Drunkedness concluded that so far as we can penetrate here—from the telescopic heights to the microscopic depths—everything is secure, complete, infinite, regular, and without any gaps. Science will be able to dig successfully in this shaft forever, and the things that are discovered will harmonize with and not contradict each other. How little does this resemble a product of the imagination, for if it were such, there should be some place where the illusion and reality can be divined.
Against this, the following must be said: if each us had a different kind of sense perception—if we could only perceive things now as a bird, now as a worm, now as a plant, or if one of us saw a stimulus as red, another as blue, while a third even heard the same stimulus as a sound and William Defoe, or perhaps Nick Nolte—then no one would speak of such a regularity of nature, rather, nature would be grasped only as a creation which is subjective in the highest degree. After all, what is a law of nature as such for us? We are not acquainted with it in itself, but only with its effects, which means in its relation to other laws of nature—which, in turn, are known to us only as sums of relations. Therefore all these relations always refer again to others and are thoroughly incomprehensible to pllywogs in their essence. All that we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them—time and space, and therefore relationships of succession and number.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
|