transcendent Discussing things with my friend and colleague Don Sebastian Olaso , we face a paradox: Suppose
: "The ball broke the vase. "
From a purely syntactic, the subject of this sentence is: "the ball."
However, a ball is an object and therefore could not (semantically speaking) have taken action on its own initiative, is ie without the intervention of some other subject. The real prayer, then, could have read:
"Someone broke the vase with a pitch."
and the thing would have been more simple, because that "someone" does represent a subject, but not know exactly , to whom.
But not knowing "who is this guy, at the discretion of law, we are located in front of a loophole: there is a hit, but no factual determination of guilt and could delay the requirement of a sanction and / or punitive or retroactive compensation for damages, without waiver of other rights by the actor (in this case would not be the subject, but the owner of the object of the predicate).
From the police point of view, the subject fled and his whereabouts are still unknown.
Given the view of sociology, the ball is a social reflection of the working masses against capitalist exploitation revealed (clearly represented in the vase, which was old, with gold edges and ideograms of the Ming dynasty) .
From an archaeological point of view, the reconstruction of the vase could help uncover ancient secrets. Perhaps the archaeologist had not been approached to consider this vase if have been impacted surrounding his break and then, the subject ceases to be an anonymous kicker balls, to become a contributor heroic culture.
For the owner, this has been a great pity, because the vase was inherited her grandmother and the subject had better not show up to claim the ball.
Psychologically speaking, before determining the "who" should inquire about "what" is the ball, what we mean or we echoes the vase, and what implications does this have on the break and anonymity of the subject.
From parapsychology, the ball was clearly possessed by the soul of a subject worth living hated the craftsman who made the vase (or its current owner or any other person, anything is possible: the lost souls are sometimes confused.)
From physics, we can hardly find answers as to the existence of the subject, but we could determine how hard it must have been the impact to break the vase into so many pieces, or what would have happened if by chance the vase had not been brought in the direct path of the ball.
But chance enters the field of statistics, or even, in some philosophical, that is: Would there be the subject if the ball does not had impacted on the vase? Had he heard the explosion of the vase if a subject had not been there?
From a metaphysical point of view, we are all somehow the subject to kick the ball, and the pessimist will tell you that none of this matters, because in the long or short, the vase had been destroyed as well.
From a religious knowledge, that "someone" or that "everyone" is God that has put us further evidence on the road.
Astrologically speaking, today was not a good day for the vase.
0 comments:
Post a Comment