DB> notice, or don't bother with stuff like this; this suggests to me, 
 DB> that reality is no more convincing than necessary to satisfy most 
 DB> of the viewers, but if you are not one of them, you may indeed see 
 DB> some inconsistency in the image presented to your mind. 
 
 DB> The answer awaits the attention of a mystical mathematician. I do 
 DB> not know that he could communicate the understanding any more than 
 DB> Einstein could present his to the general run of mankind.  So far 
 DB> as I can see, the necessity to do so is debateable. 
   ANOMALIES:
 
  Not sure if the following fits into your inquirious
  sharing, but in painting, I have often employed anomalies
  as tensions of search. As much of painting beyond the
  dream of capture, is mechanical, there is much time to
  reach for the GRAPHIC unknowable and much of this is the
  application of anomalous experiment. This can be done by
  introducing raw alien elements or even suggestions of such.
 
  SAMPLE: I once did a painting of two galleons near touching
  in their epic moment of battle. While experimenting with the
  sails, I reversed the wind for one ship and the boiling sea
  beneath it. This created a vortex (total anomaly to the
  scene) from the sea to the top flag and even to the clouds
  above, bringing them all into the battle. When shown at a
  local art show it created a stunning interest. It ranged from
  those trying to figure how it could be, to those more poetic
  souls wishing it could. Another version painted natural was
  appreciated, but with much less enthusiasm.
 
  My main point here being how art and its rich opportunity to
  tease among anomalies, has (near) totally infected my thinking
  into extending options into the "endless". It forces a very
  liberal-ish almost poetic understanding of an intellectually
  humorous  "ALL ABOUT". As I mentioned to Joe Martin in another
  posting, the "WHAT IF/hypothetical" is among the primal
  treasure tools of "non gravity" searching.
 
  After having brought up "anomaly thinking" in the past, and
  receiving VERY minimal "interest" response, I backed off some,
  perhaps realizing that PHIL is primarily concerned with "quotables".
  (or attacking by many who CLAIM they are against it but drawn as a
  moth to flame).  This led me to racing back through history to find
  out what everyone else thought and said and though not yet intimately
  familiar with "everyone", I now know who most of them were and to a
  preliminary reasonableness, their primary idea packages. I'm not "YET"
  smart enough to be impressed by most of what I'm finding of human
  thought from religion through philosophy (the sciences excepted as
  being not at all so available to understand). I may be too old
  to have the time to pick it all up . My growing collection of
  specialized encyclopedias, and "look ups"  on the INTERNET, evens
  out some of the smaller bumps on the playing fields ...sometimes!
                          _
                         /oo/~ ... Dave ...
                        ~/ >
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------