Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: September ::
Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1964  Wednesday, 25 September 2002

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 23:50:23 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 17:24:39 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[3]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 20:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 23:50:23 +0800
Subject: 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

John E. Perry writes that

> The speed of light is the same relative to _everything_.

rather than being relative to nothing.  I'm not sure if I see the
distinction, though I'm sure you'll be willing to explain it, perhaps
back-channel.

Would it have something to do with the fact that what is fixed and what
is changing depends heavily on which is being used to measure the other?
I understand that it is for this reason that the Tychonian and
Copernican universes are mathematically identical:  whether we take the
sun or the earth as the fixed point around which the other is moving,
their relation to one another is the same.  Similarly, if we measure the
speed of light _against_ mass or energy, then the speed of light would
seem to change rather than vice-versa.

What would be universal, in other words, wouldn't be mass, energy or the
speed of light, but the formula by which they're related.

Cheers,
Sean.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 17:24:39 -0400
Subject: 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>Sorry, no. The speed of light is the same relative to _everything_.
>
>John Perry

Does that mean that if you and I, standing, say, at the goal lines of a
football field, turn on our flashlights at precisely the same instant,
the light from each of us will reach the other at the same time that it
reaches an object standing on the fifty-yard line?  Or is it the case
that the effective speed of each beam relative to the other is not c but
2c?  Another way to pose the question is to ask whether the speed of
light is a "thing," in the sense in which I think Bill Godshalk was
using the word when he proposed that all things in the material universe
are relative to all other things.

Reically,
Dave Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Sep 2002 20:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1941 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>From:           D. Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
>
>R. Schmeeckle writes:
>
>>There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
>>the form of a universal.
>>
>>One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by claiming that the law of
>>contradiction is not universal, another universal.

>Wasn't it Blake who said, "To generalize is to be an idiot"? I hope so,
>for the line has given me immense gratification for many years.

Blake is replete with generalizations.  Cf. The Marriage of Heaven and
Hell.  But he passionately hated abstraction, mocked Newton and
Voltaire, and emphasized perception and vision.

My favorite Blake story is about a friend who had just become very
enthusiastic about Euclid's ELEMENTS and wanted to show Blake the proof
that the two angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.  Blake disdained
the proof, saying "I can see that they are equal."

>From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

>>Yes.  There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
>>the form of a universal. One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by
>>claiming that the law of
>>contradiction is not universal, another universal.
>
>Isn't this the Cretan Liar paradox?  All Cretans are liars. I am a
>Cretan. Therefore, what?  I'm lying and therefore all Cretans are truth
>tellers? Or perhaps I'm not a Cretan?  Or am I telling the truth for
>once?

There's a connection, but I cannot unpack it right now.  I understand
the Cretan paradox as discrediting logic divorced from existence.
Probably it is based on confusing All Cretans are liars with So Many
Cretans are Liars that one can generalize.

>>In wishing Claudius to go to hell, Hamlet commits the most
>>serious sin against charity, regardless of Claudius' guilt and Hamlet's
>>concern to avenge it.

>I would opt for the sin of pride. Hamlet is attempting to arrogate the
>power of the Christian demiurge -- the power to save or damn.  He wants
>to send Claudius directly to hell, but it is Christ who, in Christian
>mythology, comes to judge the quick and the dead -- not Hamlet.  Of
>course, Hamlet is a Christ figure since he comes to do the bidding of
>his father who is in ... well, not exactly heaven.

I do not see Hamlet as in any way a Christ figure.  Hamlet, in the scene
in question, is merely applying good Catholic doctrine, with which he
may be presumed to be familiar, that one who sincerely repents will be
forgiven and saved. Hamlet, by his decision, based on misconstruing
Claudius' state of mind, indicates that he wants to see Claudius damned
in Hell.  Hey, Hamlet is a true believer.  So am I.  But Hamlet, at this
point in the play, is all screwed up.  We will next see him hysterically
attack a curtain, attaining justice that is merely poetic.

     Roger Schmeeckle

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.