Can a press conference become a scientist?
By Thomas H Cullen
I find this question sacred. Naturally, the idea in and of itself is important, but itís a case in which the question which represents the idea can take on a protective quality. Reality is made up of questions. Questions are the routine of reality. Itís impossible to be born and to die without asking any. However, is it ever actually the nature of questions to "overcome reality"? Overcome is one way of looking at it. Protection is another. For me, a particular mystery about the question Ė of whether a press conference can become a scientist Ė is if the idea of the question being protective is at odds with the merit of the question.
A press conference is an event; one which is made up of a series of events. A scientist is not an event, but instead is a being. A being is a force thatís meant to make up events. Thus, a being can be assigned the identity "creator of event". Since itís the being who goes by as "creator of event", itís therefore logical to deduce that itís the event which goes by as "not creator of event". A "not creator of event" is a force which has to be sentient, because of the mere act of identification. If the force were simply non-sentient, that would mean that the identifier would have no cause to identify it. The "not creator of event" and the "creator of event" are both sentient, and the reason is because they are both subject to an identifier.
The press conference is sentient, because it is an event, and an event has the ability to be subject to an identifier. Obviously, the logic thatís been put on display here hasnít the right to be presumed as exempt from scrutiny. On the other hand though, is the logic good enough to protect itself?
An event is sentient, since it is subject to an identifier. The identifier is sentient, by default. Since itís the identifier thatís sentient "by default", that in turn dictates that the creator of event is "not sentient by default". The creator of event is sentient, the identifier is sentient, and the not creator of event is sentient; the first sentience is sentient due to condition, the second sentience is sentient by default, and the third sentience is sentient due to being subject to sentience by default.
To put into different terms: a being is by condition, an event is by being subject to no condition, and the identifier is by no condition.
What does this mean? The actual objective is to determine if a press conference can become a scientist Ė to determine if an event can imitate a being (if the result of being subject to no condition can imitate the result of condition). To possibly help matters, identities should be truncated: the result of being subject to no condition can be altered into "being subject to condition", the result of condition can be altered into "no condition", and the result of no condition into condition. The being is no condition. The event is by condition. The identifier is condition.
Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next