I don't think "-asm" was the suffix that the OP was looking for...

No, no, no. I was presenting Iris Murodoch's spiritualised morality, by way of demonstrating her key concept of moral vision.

Isn't it obvious?

Spinozasgalt wrote:No, no, no. I was presenting Iris Murodoch's spiritualised morality, by way of demonstrating her key concept of moral vision.

Isn't it obvious?

Is this a demonstration of absurdism?

*cough*

...

Some of my other non-verbal beliefs can be found here:
http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patt ... lbulb.html

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:No, no, no. I was presenting Iris Murodoch's spiritualised morality, by way of demonstrating her key concept of moral vision.

Isn't it obvious?

Is this a demonstration of absurdism?

Not really, but rearranging sets of tautologies is not a way to show more than that you have sets of tautologies. Working with trig identities is somewhat the same, but more challenging since there is not much beyond the Euler identity to make it appear that you have lots and lots of stuff to rearrange. I'm trying not to be hyperbolic, here.

Old Macdonald had a farm — e, i, e, i, Φ.

Yes, once you've decided which way he's turning, it's hard to get him to go the other direction.

archibald wrote:

Yes, once you've decided which way he's turning, it's hard to get him to go the other direction.

If you focus on where the foot touches the shadow and widen your focus upward at the moment the two touch she switches almost every time. A blink at that moment of touch also does it.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

If you focus on where the foot touches the shadow and widen your focus upward at the moment the two touch she switches almost every time. A blink at that moment of touch also does it.

She? I'm seeing a bloke.

archibald wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

If you focus on where the foot touches the shadow and widen your focus upward at the moment the two touch she switches almost every time. A blink at that moment of touch also does it.

She? I'm seeing a bloke.

you are in serious trouble!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

Yes, once you've decided which way he's turning, it's hard to get him to go the other direction.

If you focus on where the foot touches the shadow and widen your focus upward at the moment the two touch she switches almost every time. A blink at that moment of touch also does it.

I tried this for a minute or so. I could still only "see" her rotating anti-clockwise. To get it to work I had to scroll down the page, obscuring most of the image, so that only her ankle and the edge of her other leg were visible - then wait for the moment the image "flips" before scrolling back up to see the whole image rotating in the other direction. Odd stuff.

Matthew Shute wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

Yes, once you've decided which way he's turning, it's hard to get him to go the other direction.

If you focus on where the foot touches the shadow and widen your focus upward at the moment the two touch she switches almost every time. A blink at that moment of touch also does it.

I tried this for a minute or so. I could still only "see" her rotating anti-clockwise. To get it to work I had to scroll down the page, obscuring most of the image, so that only her ankle and the edge of her other leg were visible - then wait for the moment the image "flips" before scrolling back up to see the whole image rotating in the other direction. Odd stuff.

It even works when you shut one eye.

I imagine tying a thread to her foot. Then if I want her to go clockwise, I wait until her foot's on the right hand side of the screen, and then imagine pulling on it. And if I want her to go anticlockwise, I wait until her foot's on the left hand side of the screen, and do the same.

You have to time it just right. She's a wily one.

VazScep wrote: She's a wily one.

With dames, timing is everything. With dimes, taming is everything. Now that's some filosofeazing.

Still off topic, I see.

Regina wrote:Still off topic, I see.

That derail should be blamed on Vaz. Define 'topic'.

What I cannot abide is treating this sub-forum like a gentleman's club. If you want a gentleman's club, charge a membership fee and eject anyone who disobeys the rules.

And please, ensure there's plenty of malt in the cabinets. Or else figure out a protocol for tenure and collegiality.

Hm, there's women who drink malt.
Define "gentleman", define "woman".
I don't have a problem with gentlemen's clubs as long as they let me in.

Regina wrote:Hm, there's women who drink malt.
Define "gentleman", define "woman".

Indeed, there are women who are more gentlemanly than ostensible gentlemen. Generally, they wear pantsuits and belong in the 1980's.