|
|
default_to_zero
|
|
|
IKC 56-80
|
the value of one life or death over another is strictly based on personal context.
For example: You hear about someone dying horribly on the TV News, some small part of you gives a brief monent to sympathy and a strange, fleeting relief that it was no one you knew (nor you yourself, ostensibly). Your life is not impacted by this person's passing and therefore to you, specifially it is not terribly significant, people die all the time and it's just the way of the world after all, right?
Now conversely, if the decedent is someone you knew (or even you, assuming that some parts of the eschatology of western thought is remotely right and our souls remain aware after our bodies die) then the impact is significant to you, if it was someone you loved/cared about or were at least more than casually acquanited with, then that person has been subtracted from your equation or you from theirs
And somewhere, miles or worlds away someone who doesn't know you would feel that slight pang of sympathy and relief that it was neither them nor one of theirs.
Within the context of my loved ones, if i died, they would feel loss, but since i am an otherwise unknown commodity, my death - if word were ever to get around of it - would result in little more than, "whoa, that sucks" and even, if i had ben here long enough, a secret chorus "of good fucking riddance i hope he fucking rots"
We are odd, subjective little creatures, our sense of worth in ourselves and our sense of the worth of others can be as shifting as the tides. Someone may love you one day and hate your guts the next or even just not care the day after that.
this is just a thought, none need take it as an_ideal_for_living
|
020802
|
|
... |
|
|
grecian idiot
|
nested radicals... bring forth yet another situation whereby 0 = 1.
however that is not convenient for the abstract house of cards. so they say, "no, 0 = 0." an exception is made; they insist one defaults to zero. an implosion to combat an explosion. the house of cards falls apart, but like the emperor's new clothes, everyone insists that the cardhouse yet stands.
ooof.
|
060530
|
|
... |
|
|
z
|
gi: that was not understandable. can you elaborate?
|
060530
|
|
... |
|
|
kid cad
|
(((ã(1+nx))+1)€2)
=
(ã(ã(ã(...n timesã(x)))))
check out dr. math 4 mor nfo
|
060530
|
|
... |
|
|
cad kid
|
hey! the font cheated!
|
060530
|
|
|
what's it to you?
who
go
|
blather
from
|
|
