chicken and egg (was Re: Augury and ...)

[Ron Kracht]

John Esak wrote:

>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
>>[mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of Kenneth
>>Brody
>>Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:14 AM
>>To: Ron Kracht
>>Cc: filePro mailing list
>>Subject: OT: chicken and egg (was Re: Augury and ...)
>>
>>
>>Ron Kracht wrote:
>>[...]
>>    
>>
>>>The question assumes that there could not have been a
>>>far from chicken
>>>  and
>>>far from egg
>>>that over time became
>>>closer to chicken
>>>  and
>>>closer to egg
>>>and then
>>>almost chicken
>>>  and
>>>almost egg
>>>and finally
>>>chicken
>>>  and
>>>egg
>>>
>>>In other words - there did not have to be a first between them they
>>>could developed together. To paraphrase an old vaudeville routine
>>>developed by Joey Faye and later separately redone by Abbot and
>>>Costello, the Three Stooges, and Lucille Ball -  "Slowly they changed .
>>>. . step by step . . . inch by inch . . ."
>>>      
>>>
>>Actually, it doesn't eliminate that possibility.  But, given the above
>>sequence, does it end in:
>>
>>    almost chicken
>>    almost egg
>>    chicken       (chicken came before egg)
>>    egg
>>    chicken
>>    egg
>>    ...
>>or
>>    almost chicken
>>    almost egg
>>    almost chicken
>>    egg           (egg came before chicken)
>>    chicken
>>    egg
>>    ...
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>+-------------------------+--------------------+------------------
>>    
>>
>-----------+
>  
>
>>| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |                  
>>    
>>
>
>That was sorta my point exactly... :-)  'Cept you made it better. :-)
>
>John
>  
>
I should have know that in this hotbed of literalists(sp?) this was 
going to happen. You both focused on the words, or the inconsequential 
order of the words, and missed the idea. There does not have to be a 
'first' - it is possible for some events to happen in such tiny 
increments that there may never be a point where you can say 'what we 
had yesterday was not an egg but this thing we have today, now this is 
an egg" or "that was not a chicken and this is a chicken".  Disclaimer: 
'chicken' and 'egg'  are not meant to taken literally but are 
representatives of a type.

I'm fighting the temptation to give more examples, perhaps one involving 
the discussion of a concept and understanding of that concept, but I'm 
afraid that once again the focus would be on nitpicking the example and 
missing the idea.