The more I dig the less evidence I find for essence of any sort. In short, all things have no essences. I am content with this.
I think therefore I seem to be.
An abandoned house has a fridge with food in it. It has been there for at least six months. And it has spoilt. Flies are having a good time feasting upon the rotting organic matter. What or who observes it? The flies? The fungi? God? Are we arguing that a perception-less universe cannot exist?
The subject is never necessary in my opinion. There are only objects. The subject is accidental.
Truths are a process of a subject (a thing), and not a thing-in-itself.
A clear understanding of what exists and what are processes of existent things is necessary. From observation we can judge this. While this judgement is not perfect or complete it is the only method with which we have to judge. To chase any other method would be to deny the fact of this impossibly and be inauthentic to the reality.
The medium is the message. It always has been. It always will be. There is no escape from the medium.
Someone pointed out that we must ask the question “are we free?” first before we can even ask “do we have free will?” I agree. To be truly free would be to be able to flit in and out of material existence. We do not and can not. Secondly, the will is not independent of the body. It is always a decision of or motivation from the body. That is to say, we are not free to will, but we are only free to imagine being free to will.
Love. Love is a verb. Love is a doing word. […]Teardrop by Massive Attack
The opening lyrics of Teardrop by Massive Attack points to the verbal quality of ‘love’. What we call lemma or headwords in linguistics brings together meaning under one heading.
(1) He loves her.
make ‘love’ a verb. And the sentence
(2) ‘His love for her.’
turns ‘love’ into a noun.
Let me point out here that love “begins life” as a noun and, in fact, is turned into a verb in an act I call shall verbalisation. Pat Benatar famously sang
(3) Love is a Battlefield.
Clearly is talk of love as a thing in this usage.
But we can talk of love as an action as in
We love you. We love you. We love you. We’re going to do whatever it take to make you love me.We Love You! by Regurgitator
I am not saying anything unusual. We do this so often that we almost do not notice it … almost. But let us take ‘run’. Run, like love, is both a verb and noun. But run is used more as a verb than love is (even though the strong collocation for love is as a verb ‘I love you’). Easiest is to look at example usages.
(4) He runs six miles everyday.
(5) The dog ran away again.
For (4) is a clearly a verb. In (5) run is part of the phrasal verb run away. But in
(6) The run is tomorrow.
it is a noun. And unlike love as a noun it can be specified by a determiner. When we try with
(7) The love of a mother for her child is unparalleled in the universe.
we must specify much more clearly. That is, love is a universal and a thing. So when Massive Attack sings love is a verb they want to highlight the fact that we sometimes forget that it has a verbal form, just as I am highlighting the fact run also has a nominal form, and that these forms tell us something about conceptualisation, and language.
Love and run are nouns (and they are verbs). But they are not things. My point is, conceptualisation is a tricky business that requires serious and careful study. As a child I was taught a noun is a person, place or thing. Later I was retaught to add ‘idea’ to the list definition. Much time was spent believing love and run were things. Often I must remind myself that ideas are not things even though they can both be nouns. Just because ‘run’ in
(8) The run was fun.
is given the determiner ‘the’ it does not make it a thing as ‘the’ in
(9) The car is in the driveway.
specifies a thing. That is the difference.
There is no doubt Periscope is a great live-streaming app. The unparalleled interactiveness of the apps unlike any other similar apps will come to an end after 6 years from its release. at its best text comments and verbal replies can be achieved in under ten seconds, far quicker than any other live-streaming app. Perhaps equal in speed to instant messaging or Usenet (and likely using such technologies) it made text/video online conversation and dialogue enjoyable.
YouTube Live, for example, while does something is nowhere as interactively engaging because of the lag. I suspect the lag exists because older minimal (not minimalist) technology is used. The frustration not only shows in the broadcasters face but also in the viewers messages as well as them voting with their feet (that is, exiting the broadcast midway).
As I have said many times I would have paid for the service to broadcast. A monthly fee of, say, USD5 would have had me forking it out for its service. The exchange should have been between me and the service provider, not between me and the viewers with the service provider taking a slice of the action.
While the business model is similar to television (this reflected in its name PeriscopeTV) it really did not work that way. Banking on broadcaster content when broadcaster content has not the manpower, time and money invested in it, did not work.
But, in the end, whatever the reason that Periscope is coming to an end it is sad and will be truly missed.