DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | A Tale of the 'Evans, v. 2, issue 2, Spring 1944

Transcribe
Translate

A Tale of the 'Evans, v. 2, issue 2, Spring 1944

Page 7

page 7.

finally dragged in the fact (!?) that "all knowledge" was infinity and that therefore the man could not imagine anything that was not already in the realm of his all-knowledge. Later, when I advanced the point that the semantic connotation of the word "man" was finite, they weakly countered that the semantic association should be with the word "hypothetical", which would then be infinite. It was to this base level that they fell in an effort to win their argument from the Mighty Me. (Could it be they think I -- I-- am just a dope?)

They started talking about a man who knew the reactions of any two chemicals -- of all the reactions of all combinations of chemicals. They poo-poohed me when I stated that it would still be possible for him to IMAGINE some chemical that had no basis of existence in fact, and IMAGINE a reaction between that and some known chemical, or between that and some other imagined chemical. It was their contention that since he knew everything, he could not project his mind onto something that was not.

Silly goofs, aren't they?

I brought forth the many stories written by writers, who have taken several unrelated but known facts, and from them woven imaginary things, peoples, planets, etc. They even brought out the old wheeze that in infinity everything must be a fact, and that therefore these things that the writers have dreamed up (it seems that they only IMAGINED that they IMAGINED these things), do, in reality exist somewhere. Pure sophistry, sez I -- and me agrees.

A man somewhere and somewhen on this earth saw the distant and fascinating stars and planets. He saw ships upon the waters. He knew there was such a thing as motive power. So he brought forth in his mind a "space-ship" by which he could reach those distant stars in his imagination. Yet here is not now, never has been, and may never be, such a thing as a space-ship --AS FAR AS WE NOW KNOW! If that isn't IMAGINATION, I don't know what it could be. Do you?

Yes, it was a wonderful argument, and, like all arguments, did not reach any conclusion, bring forth any new data, or convince any one that his original premises were incorrect, or his arguments not valid and much, much stronger than those of his opponent.

But it sure was a heap of fun; was grand mental exercise; was companionship among friends; and was well worth the sore throats or sleeplessness that resulted.

Since it was not conducive of any conclusions, it may be said to be still open. Anyone want to join in? No matter which side of the thing you favor, either Ashley, myself or one of the others can probably oblige with some good counter-arguments to refute you. So hop to it, Fen -- we're still in the argumentative mood!

I LIKED IT!

Gather around, children, whiles I tell you the sad and tragic story of the sheepherder's daughter. Said sheepherder had the epizootic one day, and his brave little girl said, "I will tend your

Saving...

page 7. finally dragged in the fact (!?) that "all knowledge" was infinity and that therefore the man could not imagine anything that was not already in the realm of his all-knowledge. Later, when I advanced the point that the semantic connotation of the word "man" was finite, they weakly countered that the semantic association should be with the word "hypothetical", which would then be infinite. It was to this base level that they fell in an effort to win their argument from the Mighty Me. (Could it be they think I -- I-- am just a dope?) They started talking about a man who knew the reactions of any two chemicals -- of all the reactions of all combinations of chemicals. They poo-poohed me when I stated that it would still be possible for him to IMAGINE some chemical that had no basis of existence in fact, and IMAGINE a reaction between that and some known chemical, or between that and some other imagined chemical. It was their contention that since he knew everything, he could not project his mind onto something that was not. Silly goofs, aren't they? I brought forth the many stories written by writers, who have taken several unrelated but known facts, and from them woven imaginary things, peoples, planets, etc. They even brought out the old wheeze that in infinity everything must be a fact, and that therefore these things that the writers have dreamed up (it seems that they only IMAGINED that they IMAGINED these things), do, in reality exist somewhere. Pure sophistry, sez I -- and me agrees. A man somewhere and somewhen on this earth saw the distant and fascinating stars and planets. He saw ships upon the waters. He knew there was such a thing as motive power. So he brought forth in his mind a "space-ship" by which he could reach those distant stars in his imagination. Yet here is not now, never has been, and may never be, such a thing as a space-ship --AS FAR AS WE NOW KNOW! If that isn't IMAGINATION, I don't know what it could be. Do you? Yes, it was a wonderful argument, and, like all arguments, did not reach any conclusion, bring forth any new data, or convince any one that his original premises were incorrect, or his arguments not valid and much, much stronger than those of his opponent. But it sure was a heap of fun; was grand mental exercise; was companionship among friends; and was well worth the sore throats or sleeplessness that resulted. Since it was not conducive of any conclusions, it may be said to be still open. Anyone want to join in? No matter which side of the thing you favor, either Ashley, myself or one of the others can probably oblige with some good counter-arguments to refute you. So hop to it, Fen -- we're still in the argumentative mood! I LIKED IT! Gather around, children, whiles I tell you the sad and tragic story of the sheepherder's daughter. Said sheepherder had the epizootic one day, and his brave little girl said, "I will tend your