Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Torrere
First of all, you lie. He asked the question in nine words and Lumberjim answered it with a thousand and seven words. Beestie and Elspode also answered the question.
|
Reviewing those posts again, maybe there was an attempt at an anwser. I certainly still cannot see it in a few responses. A kid splashing in a mud puddle makes about as much sense to me as the 'kid pissing on a statue' and calling it the purpose of life - a philosophy whose real purpose is to insult. I watched those english teachers dish out 'Paul was barefoot and therefore dead' from the Abbey Road album. To me, classic junk philosophy intended to insult. But on second thought, and after literally rereading those particular replies about 10 times, maybe there was an attempt to actually reply to Flint.
Models are only examples. Examples so that a concept is provided something concrete; so that the reader can compare his interpretation to an example/model; so that the reader can confirm he properly understood the author's intent. Those models were not intended to limit the scope of Flint's question which I regard as intentionally vague. If Flint intended something more specific, he can limit the scope of his question. If Flint intended his question to have scale, then he would have put numbers or limiting examples to it.
Having said that, I still don't understand how society has a "level". And I don't understand why "I find your question somehow strange and out of place." is relevant. Like the 'pissing kid', and like those english teachers who could not understand why 'Paul was not dead', I again see little relevant in such replies.
Marichiko provided a definition - something to work with. It did not answer the question, but the definition proves useful - one step to providing an answer. Elspode did same by providing a framework; a structure to better define where to seek an answer. My post should not have implied Elspode post belongs in a category of subjectively irrelevant interpretations.
Meanwhile, "If two people argue, and each person understands a different, contradictory model, they talk past each other. The argument goes nowhere and becomes stupid." is why perspective causes two people to answer correctly and yet provide 'apparently incompatible' answers. Wars have been fought over less. Which is why I am still looking at that answer about 'levels' and about "the ebb and flow of things". And yet still see nothing but 'a kid pissing on a statue' philosophy or a hidden message that 'Paul is dead'.