12 Answers
- Anonymous2 months ago
Human traits are too honestly diverse for such notion zxj
. . . . . . . . . .
, , , , , , , , , ,
- Anonymous2 months ago
NOT PHILOSOPHY. Wrong forum. Take it to Polls Surveys.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Yep using my telepathic ability.
- 2 months ago
If my eyesight was failing, then to read between the lines, I'd reach for a magnifying glass to counter act the bleariness! Thank heavens, cognition happens on many levels!
- Michael MLv 62 months ago
I find that reading between the lines usually leads to incorrect assumptions. When the figurative lines are blurred the problem is compounded.
- j153eLv 72 months ago
Imho, a line is 1-dimensional; if it is "blurred," it is > 1-dimensional (i.e., including fractional dimensions such as 1.5, but more commonly 2 or 3 d, or more).
A "line of words" is a metaphor for tautological statements: unambiguous ~ 1-dimensional. Even if the sentence "line" is part of a set of lines, there is in effect only one "line (of reasoning)." If this line of reasoning is > 1-d, it is not a line, but a 2- (or more) d field, with Cartesian coordinates at every stated point in the line of reasoning. Each word in the sentence line carries meanings; if a given word's meaning (facticity and agency) is > 1-d, i.e. it has at least 2 points (meanings) in it, the entire "line" is "blurred" (splayed along at least 2 d), and will likely be subject to rules of first order logic--unless the two points are polar opposites; in this latter Boolean case the Cartesian field of sets aka "line of reasoning" is called "differentiated," with two "lines of reasoning"--e.g., 1-1-2-1 ---> 1-1-a-1 and 1-1-b-1 (a and b being polar opposites, as in a and not-a). In each case, the line is not "blurred"--it has become subject to analytic geometry by virtue of its > 1-d meaning options. (In the case of non-Euclidean topologies, each smallest unit local space is reducible to Cartesian-Euclidean metrics.)