[AntonioLao]

The adventure and intrigue fiction novelist Sidney Sheldon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Sheldon wrote The Other Side of Midnight in 1973. He also created long-running TV series including a favorite one I Dream of Jeannie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dream_of_Jeannie. One of the stars, Larry Hagman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Hagman went on to become the antihero in another long-running TV drama series Dallas. All these audio-visual entertainments mixed reality and fantasy making them fun to watch until boredom takes over, the mind reached a higher level of understanding when saturated by too much sight and sound empowered by the effect of TV and movies. So, the question is what lies between reality and fantasy, between boring and funny, between night and day, between ignorance and knowledge, between being smart and being dumb? Are these comparisons absolutes or relatives? If the midpoint is the apex of a Gaussian error distribution function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution then it indicates instability. On the other hand if it is the bottom of an energy potential well then it signifies stability, motionlessness, changelessness, and timelessness. Nevertheless, what would be synonymous to Shakespearean Comedy of Errors http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9003171at the infinitesimal region between two space-time points appearing both side of the median as variance or square of a standard deviation?

[Guille]

I know I might be using too much his ideas, but he is such a poet of thought that I have to reference him again. Baudrillard says that what we have classically seen as opposites are not in opposition, but in seduction. Seduction seduces production, absence seduces presence, evil seduces good, femenine seduces masculine. And the same with all the other comparisons.

[harmonygirl]

Antonio, I am a big fan of seeing the fantasy in reality. I went through a Syndey Sheldon phase when I was pre-teen and I did indeed think that was reality. As I grew up, I realized that reality is quite different. Then I wised up and realized that fantasy can be reality. I prefer to see my environment as integrated parts of a whole. It is always twighlight. Bhudda said so.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl It is always twighlight.

I described this in other posts as traveling at the speed of light. The idea is how to travel at superluminal speed.

Originally Posted by GUILLE but in seduction

A tendency toward or away from each other? A becoming? Or an undoing?

[harmonygirl]

Hey Antonio, towards, away from, becoming, undoing, all simply motion viewed from different perspectives and therefor the same thing...

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl towards, away from, becoming, undoing, all simply motion viewed from different perspectives and therefor the same thing...

Primary forces repel while secondary forces attract. All primary forces are equal, relatively or absolutely, while secondary forces are not.

[Guille]

Antonio,

Seduction is always atraction. However, it may manifest in opposite direction too; that two people who repel each other are actually seduced. But of course that is due to the situation and history regarding the particular event, and in fact those factors impply that the reaction taken due to the seduction (atractive) is a repulsive manifestation. Seduction is the governant of appearance and surface. Not only of physical appearance, but a much wider meaning; manifestation is the space for seduction. In that way, science, which is about manifestations, is our response to the seduction that the universe's manifestation effects on us. When intellectuals realized that there was no clear way through the discourse of the being (metaphysics) they decided to talk about the manifestations, for it was easier, as they didn't have to dig and dig, and so they invented/discovered science. Now, the error of science positivist thinkers is that they tried to make a philosophy with scientific modes, and now postmodern thinkers are doing the same error but the other way round; they are making a science with philosophical modes. The first was pseudophilosophy and the second is pseudoscience. Both are wrong. But it is the consecuence of phenomenology, and unless we find a solution to the problem presented by it, by Husserl's work, we will lead to the end of both science and philosophy, which started a century ago (due to Husserl, Russel, Planck...).

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE unless we find a solution to the problem presented by it, by Husserl's work, we will lead to the end of both science and philosophy

The more the World (Universe) becomes comprehensible the more pointless is human existence. I need to look up Husserl's works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl. Thanks.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The more the World (Universe) becomes comprehensible the more pointless is human existence. I need to look up Husserl's works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl. Thanks.

It is very interesting. I haven't read directly his books, but I have read about him quite a lot. You are completlely correct in your assertion about our existence, in fact that reminds me I missed something that Baudrillard says; that seduction is requiers only one factor; secret. If there weren't secrets in science, we would be seduced by it, and if our life has no secret for science is solving more and more, then less and less we are seduced by our life, and the pointless it is.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE then less and less we are seduced by our life, and the pointless it is.

The desire to know more is what keep me going. But some are content to go on living with being ignorant of anything.