logic_gaps daxle If ice turns into water, it was never ice. If something turns into something else, it was never the original thing. My retort: essentially, no. 041213 ... stork daddy an exception would be if the very definition of the thing belies some consistency, persistance, or stability that the change contradicts. a clump of sand was never a stone, is not a stone, until it is. 041213 ... monee stone becomes sand becomes stone 041213 ... stork daddy but the distinction remains. 041213 ... daxle stone doesn't work, so what is an example of something that is defined by it's consistency? 041213 ... stork daddy unconditional love would for instance would cease to be unconditional the second it succumbed to a condition. now perhaps some would argue that's why it doesn't exist, but the point remains that if it changes, it never was to begin with, because it is defined by infinite stability in the face of infinite conditions. a more precise way of saying what i think your friend is trying to say is that something may appear to be something, but a result farther down the line can reveal that it never was what it was purported to be. ice was still ice even if it turns into water, but if you call something romantic love and it turns into platonic friendship, it is arguable that it never was romantic love in the first place. it depends on your definition. for instance, if as far as physics can tell the universe is infinitely expanding now, but then it turns out it stops expanding, we could say that it never was infinitely expanding in the first place, it just seemed that way. if you correctly describe something which is a component of a later thing, you can't really say that the component never was. as in the ice examples and the stone examples, indeed it is necessary that the prior state truly was. but if the later state is exclusive of the prior definition, you cannot help but concede that the earlier state never truly was, and was misdiagnosed. perhaps that is what your friend meant. it certainly is what i'm trying to say. 041213 ... stork daddy and your retort is generally that everything is in flux and based on conditions prior. 041213 ... stork daddy i mean, to get semantical, ice was nothing until it was ice. it only came into being when it became ice, so it is misleading to say ice was ever water. by definition ice was not water. it's largely based on definitions. what both definitions have in common are molecules of a certain kind. and those remain the same despite the changes. but something which is one thing cannot have been another thing. the very definition of it is based on that arbitrary distinction we draw. when one thing becomes another is largely a matter of more arbitrary semantics. 041213 ... stork daddy ice is perhaps again a bad example though because it's definition necessarily includes water. and perhaps a good argument is that nothing can become something it wasn't capable of becoming. but where this argument resides is whether or not we diagnose the initial state well enough to predict at least the possibility of the end state. if water became fire, it is clear that even if it seemed water before, it clearly was not. 041213 ... stork daddy but the fact remains that a circle was never a triangle. the abstract definitions are mutually exclusive. clay that was once shaped as a circle can become shaped as a triangle, but a circle can not become a triangle, for then it ceases to be a circle. this leads me to the conclusion that nothing ever changes. 041213 ... Syrope happens to everybody, eh? i bit my tongue *but it hasn't ever happened to me* i'd already had to grovel enough, i guess. he sounded so...bitter when he said my new job'd called for a reference. usually he'd be so happy to tell me he gave me a great review, but he was disappointed in me, and i'd been so sure i don't have any motivation left 041213 ... stork daddy on re-appraisal, i'm at least partly wrong. 041213 ... l autre insignifiant a sentiment that can be seemingly contradicted, lessened or maybe even revoked with little or no angst cannot have been entirely sincere 041214 ... daxle the key word there is "seemingly" and it seems that as per usual we are seeing two completely different things 041215 ... stork daddy] i'd hardly call that anymore usual than the logic gaps between any other two people. 041215 ... daxle i made no statement about it being or not being as such storky. (read closer- that wasn't my point, nor was i talking to you Ahem!) 041215 ... stork daddy i understand that seemingly contradictory and actually contradictory are two different things. and i wasn't assuming you were referring to me, i'm just saying that communication gaps are the norm not the exception. 041215 ... l autre insignifiant based on things that have happened and things that have been said (pushed away in deference to who was there before, pushed away in deference to those that have come along since...and every time i've thought to give up you persuaded me to hang on, just so it could happen time and again) what else can i perceive but that of the given lot, i have always been the least? 041216 ... daxle you were not there they were (and i can't keep holding on...) 041216 ... l autre insignifiant even when i was right there next to you... did you forget that his name was on your lips when you pulled away from that kiss? I'll admit that i was trying to run from my old shadows when i came to see you, but the whole time i was there you were retreating deeper into yours and every time i tried to get back there, every time i had managed to resolve whatever logistical issues were keeping me from coming around again, another would come along, and i'm sorry that i don't like walking into situations where i know i'm going to end up feeling superfluous. and if i must feel anything that stings or burns, i prefer that feeling to come from the end of a strap than from being... ← 041217 what's it to you? who go blather from