attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
Ok, read it.
Answerer, 'IT, knew the answers to the questions, but simply couldn't be bothered or as maybe was implied, was too distant with its knowledge to understand how to answer man's 'simple' questions.
The example was used when the men realised this by considering themselves as bushman in comparison to a physicist, by suggesting they would not be able to explain to a bushman why he when he shoots his arrow it would not hit the Sun.
yes but the parallel is orders of magintude - infintely farther.
Bushman = modern man = still clueless,
ask Lek! who "skipped stars" and the #18 fellow who was born from that rule - just apearing without space.
they were as clueless - locked in their own perceptions of reality.
WRT to them, the Bushman and Modern man are the same! - and all infinately wrong in understanding of reality.
BTW the Bushman vs modern man conclusion was made by the modern man in the story, not by Answerer, and Answerer stated he was wrong!
lol.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
I think that's rather short sighted, no pun intended, and rather arrogant on their part.
Don't disparage Sheckley, he was no neo-colonialist.
remove your PC cultural bias per this short story, the author was bigger than this mentality.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
Given time, they could explain to a bushman the fundamentals as to why the arrow would not hit the Sun.
yes, and all the equations in the world explaining gravity, and fusion of stars etc.............nature of the universe per the educated modern man teaching the bushman = equals a bushman with the same concept if the universe as the modern man.
and utterly wrong.
as "Answerer" said to the modern man (sorry i forget his man - lingman was the dying companion - i rem the dying man's name not his "Self assured" companion), and Lek and the tiny rule of 18 born next to the cold star.
all were clueless and have utterly different self assured understanding of the nature of Reality.
but only Answerer knew of True Reality.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
I guess this is an old piece of writing where arrogance amidst the white collar was common.
see above, your conclusion disshonours Sheckley and shows a flippant bias on your part.
the work is universal, not "anglo-colonial" centric.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
They considered the fella in the bush as unintelligent, rather than just lacking knowledge.
"they"? who is "they"?
- lingman's assisant was an ass........even by end of the story is learned nothing, only that "the answerer" could not affirm his view of reality.
lingman was wise and understood, then died.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
Getting back to this 'Answerer' that knows EVERYTHING, but was too stupid (lacked the intelligence) to know how to answer a physicist, well ya, wot a waste - pretty much a database served by a dipshit.
WTF??????? answerer knew physics was rot, along with Lek's view of the Purple Mound, knowing the bigger picture (so past Purple Mound, Rule of 18 and Physics - all are wrong and not even related to reality in any way!).
if you thought Answerer was stoopid, well...........you can figure it out.
Answerer sat. neither small nor large, awaiting creatures to ask him the nature of the universe, duration continued.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:01 pm
to know how to answer a physicist
no point to bother.
do you talk to ants on the sidewalk? explain to them about how man made the concrete they walk on?