"A door without a knob is a wall..." Thoughts?
Maybe this is a major brain fart, to me the statement is extremely deep because it shares the same fabric/common theme as philosophical questions such as 'what is the meaning of life?'; the idea of 'purpose'...
Or perhaps it's one of those questions (even though it's a statement), that has no answer and your response tells you something about yourself.
Btw the quote is one of my own, in case you were wondering.
(I'd like to apologise to the mods in advaned if my OP doesn't meet the requirements of the forum . Hopefully you can see what I was trying to achieve and grant me a little leeway in this regard? I only ask it because I think this forum is probably the only place on the internet I can expand upon what i'm trying to say)
Or perhaps it's one of those questions (even though it's a statement), that has no answer and your response tells you something about yourself.
Btw the quote is one of my own, in case you were wondering.
(I'd like to apologise to the mods in advaned if my OP doesn't meet the requirements of the forum . Hopefully you can see what I was trying to achieve and grant me a little leeway in this regard? I only ask it because I think this forum is probably the only place on the internet I can expand upon what i'm trying to say)
Comments (73)
There are doors without knobs, such as lift doors etc. Maybe expand on your point a bit.
But, but...lift doors can still look or function like a wall, when closed.
There needs to be a button, a knob or a key to open any such 'wall'.
Quoting BeanutPutter
How so ?
Maybe, although I see a door as something built to allow progress through a barrier (such as a wall) making the function of a knob very peripheral. Either way we need some more sauce BeanutPutter.
Maybe this is a thread about essentialism. I'm not sure. If it is, I'll just jump to the conclusion (spolier alert!) and point out there is no definition of walls or doors that captures every case because such things have no essence.
Yes, we do, but (assuming the door is the sort that can only be opened by twisting the knob and pushing/pulling) functionally, that knobless door is indistinguishable from a wall. The OP mentioned purpose, and in this context, the knobless door is (in effect) a wall, even though this is not - cannot be - so literally.
A cat with arms is a fucked up cat.
Your cat has yet to evolve arms?
But a cat without arms is not. Unless it doesn't have legs either, in which case it is a snake, as Professor @S has so perspicaciously noted.
Yes. And a slug is just a tiny, toothless snake. Or a tiny, toothless cat with no arms or legs. Which is a different way of saying the same thing.
Or, a tiny toothless cat with no arms or legs. I can keep this up all day, although that may not be fair to @BeanutPutter.
Quoting Amity
I like this, instead of expanding the point, you've redefined one of the main elements of the question. And that, my friends, is what we call "philosophy."
Yes, but I got to use "perspicaciously." And, in a paraphrase to Leslie Nielsen, don't call me "old chap."
"Old man" would be ok though, because, well, I am an old man.
Really ? :yikes:
I didn't know that...
Well...thank you, I think :chin:
:sparkle:
Or a doorknob. Or a wall.
I have yet to see a cat with arms, so it is difficult to imagine on without them. :chin:
My doorstop just bit me.
I think there's room here to understand - and defend? :chin: - flexibility of thought and vocabulary. It's not a crime or a sin, as far as I know. It can even be useful, on occasion. :up:
It's not really redefining anything to portray a door as a wall (in some circumstances). That's just being flexible, and saying 'let's just see where this goes...'. :up:
I like it :up:
'flexibility of thought and vocabulary'
The key to passing through the dogma wall...
Fresh air through open doors. Cats stay watch.
Is that a pet theory ?
Now let's not get carried away! :smile: Flexibility of thought helps specifically when we're seeking for something new or different. And it needs to be followed with some more rigorous consideration, or we can end up with half-thought-out nonsense for our trouble. :wink: So it's not a key (IMO), or a secret weapon against dogma ... but it might help. :up:
Quoting Amity
No, I rather think it's a very bad joke, yes? :wink:
Keep on thinking, it sounds good - through the skull walls... :smile:
Part of your favourite quote:
In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
? Richard Feynman
The open door is a start...
The thing with the knob is a movable wall.
I don't want to get nit-picky, but doesn't a door open onto a passage? Isn't it an entry to that passage? :chin:
That said, language is known to mutate - an example I'm sure you're familiar with being the word 'gay'.
So the words themselves don't matter as much as meaning and intent; thusly, use 'door' as you wish.
Not a "portal", or something similar?
If you're not familiar, the port in portal stands for gate.
I think it refers to an entrance or place of entry. Entry to somewhere; in your example, a passage/corridor. A door leads onto whatever lies behind it, doesn't it?
An entry to a passage, would basically be a passage to a passage; a bit redundant.
That a door leads to whatever lies behind it, does not disentangle it from being a passage - as a passage does the same, correct? Likewise a bridge?
You are removing the cover of a portal between one place and another. I makes no difference what is on either side of the portal.
An easier way to convey the door as the barricade would be to reference its hinges; though considering this cover is more or less part of the passage, when you reference the cover you inadvertently reference the passage.
A barricade, cover, door are not the same as a wall, and never will be. All of them are removable, can you remove a wall?
Do you see any foundational difference between a wall and a barricade? A wall isn't immovable, merely stationary.
Look up the definition of barricade, door, cover and then wall. Which is meant to be movable and which is meant to be permanent? A wall is not immovable, but it is a bitch to close it again after you open it.
A door is not a passage, but one end of a passage. A door, like a point in maths, is considered to have zero thickness. [ Not literally zero, of course, but we normally assume its thickness is insignificant. ] It marks and protects an entrance or exit to/from somewhere else. Is this really all so complicated?
'Tis you. dear sir, that is spinning in circles. A wall just stands there, it cannot be opened in the sense that a door or portal would be. THAT is why they install doors in them, so that one can traverse through the wall without having to disintegrate your self and pass the molecules between those of the wall material.
But you said:
Quoting Sir2u
And there are doorflaps within doorflaps.
Hence I said:
Quoting Shamshir
Go back and the missing piece should become apparent. A door is indeed a wall - but what is missing?
Perhaps a glove may garner the answer?
Let's say it is not a passage, a through. What then do you open when you open the door...?
Consider a room, with a door that connects the room to a corridor. The door marks the border between the room and the corridor. But the door is not the border, just a marker, like the "US-Canada border is here" signs.
But a door offers extra function, just to confuse us. :wink: Because the door can also allow or prevent passage between the room and the corridor. When we open the door, we allow passage between the room and the corridor, in either direction. When we close it, we prevent passage.
"What then do you open when you open the door"
Physically, I open the door, by swinging the wooden barrier that is the door on its hinges. So physically, I move a sheet of wood. Metaphorically, I open a border (between the room and the corridor).
Is there a point to the mystery we're creating here? A door is a movable barrier. What are we chasing here, @Shamshir? :chin:
Now you're getting it.
That a door is a passage is an honest statement.
But alas an omission.
Open your hand - you unfold your hand - like you unfold the doorframe.
Open your ears - you clear your ears - like you clear the doorway.
You being @Pattern-chaser, I wonder, did you not pick up on my zig-zag? Perhaps looking at the chronology in retrospect you'll see it, if you did not.
And now that you've got it:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Thus framed, the point is the will of the wisp.
But when chasing patter, we are mystbound and not paying attention - finding we've lost our way.
Perhaps this needless extrapolation is actually an allusion - and while the suspense kept us in place, going through the door may have been the key.
Is this adequate?
Who mentioned size? How can size be an issue when the size of the DOOR is adjust to the size of the object passing through it. Do you not open your big garage door to drive your car out. Next time try driving through the wall as they are the same thing right.
Quoting Shamshir
Those little flats are just smaller doors set into larger ones so that you do not have to open the big one. Try to imagine a warehouse door being opened ever time a person wants to enter or leave, that is why they install smaller "people" size doors in them .
A door is a door and will all ways be a door.
A wall is a wall and until you can show me one that can be opened and closed you are wrong.
END OF TOPIC
Do you drive through the garage door or do you move it?
I think it's a misleading statement. A door is a door. It allows passage, or it allows access to a passage, but it is not in itself a passage. Having (effectively) zero thickness, the one thing a door is not is a passage. A passage has length; it takes you from one place (one end) to another (the other end); it traverses distance.
Quoting Shamshir
Now you're investigating the different meanings that "open" and "clear" can carry?
Quoting Shamshir
Now I am completely and utterly lost.
What is the point of this diversion???
What are you trying to tell/show us???
Very well.
But may I ask how this lack of passage intersects a passage? Likewise, wouldn't an effective zero thickness be counterproductive to your statement?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I'm sheathing the door, hoping it fits.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Nothing important - moreso I'm just following through.
Then we're done here. :up:
Time to close the door and pass on through.
:meh: Did you not read where I said that you open the door to drive your car out, it would then seem pretty obvious that you would have to drive through the hole that it left in the wall.
[I]Why do you favour one over the other?[/i]
Doesn't matter.
Egg with or without a shell is egg.
Please, pay attention.
You've been following so earnestly, that you forgot to stop and notice - I'm not making a distinction, as one would be utterly worthless.
It's all just a reference to an omission.
And the omission is context.
Look at the first question I asked in this thread.
I am beginning to think that you have some sort of a problem with the English language. You cannot open a wall. You would have to knock it down or drive over it.
Quoting Shamshir
OK.
Quoting Shamshir
If this is the question you are talking about the only omission from the question is common sense.
You would usually dismantle the door to look inside it or look stupid if it was a solid door.
A door involves just two things, allowing passage from one place to another or block passage from one place to another. Opening it allows the first and closing it the second. And you can call it whatever you like, door, manhole cover, portal, trapdoor, storm door, revolving door, fire door and the list goes on and on.
A door might be part of a wall but it is not a wall.
I am out of here.
Bye.
Then why not just say so? You post riddles, and expect us to telepathically discover your point. Clarity and simplicity, y'know? :wink:
Tangling yourself up in an effort to untangle is my method of exploration~
If you've ever any mysterious amalgamations, do share~
Quoting Shamshir
I have found that, if I am unclear, my audience is unwilling to spend the time trying to work out what I intended. They ignore me and move on. Clarity and simplicity are what we put into our writing for the benefit of those who read our words.... :chin:
In order to attain clarity as to the matter of doors, we must be inclined to open all doors to the matter - even doors that on the forefront appear not as doors.
Should we wish to broaden our awareness, we must be willing to carefully measure every supposed absurdity.
So perhaps it's just a matter of patience?
I was trying to refer, gently, to your audience. My attempt at diplomacy (not a talent I actually have). More directly: speak clearly or get ignored. Your riddles are too much like hard work, for very little reward. Sorry. :meh:
If I wrote something, and you don't understand it - does the responsibility of understanding not ultimately rest with you?
Leading a horse to water and all that.
No, not really. You aren't our resident guru, you're a philosopher with whom we are all trying to exchange meaning. If you deliberately make it difficult for us to understand you, why should we expend the effort? :chin:
In the same way a well written manual on riding a bicycle is worthless if the rider doesn't innately 'get it'.
Or the punchline of a joke.
That is the first sensible thing you have said, well almost sensible.
But there is no way a person can learn to ride a bike by reading about it. You have to put your butt in the saddle and ride till you fall off and then start gain.
Quoting Shamshir
When things need to be explained, the onus is on the writer to do so. There is no horse and no water involved.
Quoting Shamshir
Jokes rarely transcend ethnic, racial, territorial, gender, economic or even age barriers. And the best comedians no that and play to a particular audience so that the do get the punch line.
It is not the problem of the poor black kid in the ghetto to understand a rich man's joke about golf.
Completely different sense to the word as used in this context as used in the door example.
Quoting Shamshir
I seriously doubt that you have anything new or exciting to offer. :shade:
I don't think we ascribe responsibility to the process of "understanding". It happens, or not. But convincing is a task, the responsibility of which falls on the writer -- that is, it is the writer's responsibility to convince the reader of the value or truth of his ideas.
Maybe you've heard this one:
The pastor looks in the locker and sees that there are only two more parachutes, he grabs one. The witness grabs the other and they both jump out before the others can realize what is happening.
The Muslim gets down on the floor and prays out loud and then jumps out of the plane screaming "Into the hands of Allah". A hand reaches down from the cloud and grabs him.
The jew drops to the floor and repeats what the Muslim did, then jumps out of the plane screaming "Into the hands of Allah". A hand reaches down from the cloud and grabs him.
The catholic priest follows the example of the rabbi an jumps screaming "Into the hands of Allah". A hand reaches down from the cloud and grabs him.
Just as he jumps the plane's motor dies and it dips towards the earth.
"Oh thank god" he cries and crosses himself.
The hand from the sky throws him to the ground.
You have to continue believing.
:razz:
After the plane was airborne, drink orders were taken. The Irishman asked for a whiskey, which was promptly brought and placed before him.
The flight attendant then asked the Mormon if he would like a drink. He replied in disgust, "I'd rather be savagely raped by a dozen whores than let liquor touch my lips."
The Irishman then took a sip of his whiskey, and began to rummage around under his seat as though he was looking for something.
He kept on rummaging around for quite some time whilst the Mormon looked at the Irishman in bewilderment, until finally the Mormon asked him, "What are doing? Are looking for something?".
The Irishman replied, "Yes, and I've just this moment found it!".
So the Mormon asked, "What is it that you've found?"
And the Irishman replied, "A cat with no arms and legs".
- Moses, how much is 2 + 2?
- 2 + 2 makes four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten... - answers Moses.
- Wait, wait, wait! Now, you remember this from me - 2 + 2 makes four, five, six, seven at maximum!
Eight, nine and ten in the Armenian school, next door.