Eneg: Some people have the silly idea that we all might be characters in a novel, and what we think of as the "real world" is actually just the novelist's setting. Of course this is nonsense, since novels are not a place, and so nothing whatsoever can live "in" them.
Salis: But what about a sufficiently rich novel? One with lots and lots of details about rivers and hills and cities and forests?
Eneg: Huh? What difference does the amount of detail make? Where do you think people living in the novel are?
Salis: In the novel!
Eneg: What do you mean? They live inside the paper and ink?
Salis: No, they live in the story!
Eneg: But the story is not a place. The only physical parts of the novel are the paper and ink, and they are a place one can live, if one is a bookworm. But the story only arises in our imagination, as we look at that paper and ink.
Salis: So, you are just like the people who in 1700 said a novel but never capture the inner flow of our mental life: but look at Ulysses! How can you say what the limits of the novel are? Future authors may write novels many times as complex as the novels of today!
Eneg: That they may. But they still will not provide a place in which living creatures may dwell.
Salis: You see, you just have an ideology that denies the possibility of people living in a novel, while not offering any reason whatsoever for rejecting the idea!
Eneg: Aargh! [He takes out a virtual gun, and shoots himself in his virtual head with it.]
It's not just abortion where these euphemisms bug me either. I think it is sometimes OK to euthanize your pet, but... you did not "...
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...