Wed, Nov. 29th, 2006, 08:56 pm
What's the hardest thing to imagine?
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 07:12 am (UTC)
Well, er, I would imagine.. er.. well, it'd be.. no, wait, I can imagine that.. gimme a second, let me imagine the unimaginab-
(head explodes promptly)
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 07:55 am (UTC)
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 07:54 am (UTC)
masstreble: Say it isn't so
I hope this is hypothetical! O-O
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 07:58 am (UTC)
Hard to imagine, because it's a geometric impossiblity, but impossibilities themselves are concievable by nature: we're discussing it now, correct? To do so would be to imagine it, and thus understanding it as an impossibility. Still, that would make a great usericon. (But not if you just make a triangle and stick a few nested obtuse triangles in there. That's not what either of us meant.)
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 07:59 am (UTC)
Impossible to determine, as the moment you become capable of describing it, it cease being the hardest thing to imagine.
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 07:59 am (UTC)
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 09:00 am (UTC)
Well, if you are talking about natural things: a diamond.
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 02:35 pm (UTC)
Four cockroaches stealing a rabbit resting on a dock??
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 08:15 am (UTC)
Is it? I may have to take back what I said to circuit_four
up there: we can imagine nothing, although perhaps not understand the depths of its implications.
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 03:21 pm (UTC)
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 08:17 am (UTC)
Nope, four-dimensional figure-skating is harder. ;]
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 07:01 pm (UTC)
If by imagine you mean visualize, then any geometrically impossible object would be hardest to imagine.
Unless your last name is Escher. ;D
But since I can imagine sounds and other senses...in the truest sense, your question cannot be answered by me in any language I know. Any answer true for me would have to be in a language I do not understand, embodying concepts English has no equivalent for. By definition, anything possible to describe using one's natural language can be imagined, even something as abstract as "an emotion" or "politics," because one imagines the physical events/objects surrounding the concept as a representation of it.
So, in a broad sense, your question can never be truthfully answered in the same language that it is written in.
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 08:21 am (UTC)
That's pretty much what I and other have arrived at after chewing this one for a couple of hours. Rather, this is the point where one's train of thought sputters, fuelless, and eventually settles.
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 09:43 pm (UTC)
Cheese that /doesn't/ go with something. What, this was one of those zen things? Aww...
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 10:22 pm (UTC)
The answer to that question.
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 08:27 am (UTC)
masstreble: I like your style -- I thought of this one, too.
Ahh, c'mon, that's like answering "The koan has the Buddha nature if and only if the master believes it has the Buddha nature" in Zendo. Sure, it works, but only as a statement of identity. We understand the answer to the question is the harderst thing to imagine -- that's the point.
Admittingly, I thought this was a satisfactory answer for a few minutes when I first thought of it myself.
Thu, Nov. 30th, 2006 10:32 pm (UTC)
The how and why I've survived.
Fri, Dec. 1st, 2006 08:28 am (UTC)
I feel the same sometimes.