[EVA][rebuttal] Inconclusive disproof of the tantai's existence
nanashi96 at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 15 02:36:52 EDT 1999
>>What you've just said is that any possible interpretation of the meaning of the word 'separate' which is not your own is wrong. Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?<<
I merely said that out of eleven definitions, ten are irrelevent to *my* case. I did not say "my interpretation is correct." I do not deny the truth of the conditionals (with the exception of #11).
My case is merely this:
Definition of [A] states that, "If [A is gone], then [B is gone]." Definition of [B] states that, "If [B is gone] occurs, then [D is gone]." Definition of [C] states that, "[C] = [D is gone]." Therefore, by the laws of conditionals, "If [A is gone], then [C] will happen."
[A] = [AT-field]
[B] = [separation]
[C] = [Tantai]
[D] = [individualism]
Given that the definitions above are true, then my case is true. However, I note that [A] and [C] are products of Mr. Patrick Yip's translations. They may or may not be what GAINAX originally intended them to be. That is why this "proof" is inconclusive.
>>So only the single definition which backs *your* chosen position is relevent while any definition which backs any other position is not?<<
No. The ten definitions that don't specifically support my case do not disprove my case, and do not interfere with my case. The purpose of my last letter was to prove that. I believe I have done so.
>>>--adj. 7. not connected or joined.<<<
>>and thus it is relevent to me.<<
>>I've been saying that when the AT-field is removed humans are 'connected' inside the communal mind while not losing their individuality. Think of a string of pearls. The pearls are not 'separate' from each other, yet they are not only *one* pearl. They exist as individuals on a communal nicklace.<<
Your statement can be expressed as follows:
If [people lose their AT-fields], then [people are connected and joined].
If the above conditional is your theory, then it doesn't specifically support my case and it doesn't interfere with my case. I do not deny its truth.
Though the above conditional may be true by definition, it does not imply that the following conditional is true:
If [people are connected and joined], then [people lose their AT-fields].
And this follow up of the original statement isn't necessarily true either:
If [people are connected and joined], then [people are among the communal mind]. Therefore, if [people lose their AT-fields], then [people are among the communal mind].
>>Rei tells him that he did. Yet you chose to disregard every translation that disagrees with your position.<<
I do not disregard those translations. I merely state that they are circumstantial evidence and cannot be used to *prove* that your theory is correct.
>>Two people on this list have supported Mr. Sato's translation of that scene.<<
If GAINAX supports it as well, then I'll comply.
>>In addition we see him lose his AT-field, but you say that we can't believe what we see.<<
I didn't see anything. Unless it's written somewhere, by GAINAX, that Shinji lost his AT-field in the movie, "we see him lose his AT-field" is merely your interpretation of the events.
>>Don't shut your eyes to the facts, then agrue with me because I am unable to see the darkness you see. You might be able to 'define' the meanings of words and thus change them to fit your needs, but you can't change what is in the movie itself.<<
I'm arguing with you because you believe that the light that you see is the *only* light there is. The darkness is endless, and is full of maybes and mights. To shun the darkness is to blind yourself with one light, and to do this is an error, for there is a need for contrast in this world of relative perspectives.
The only set facts and definitions out there are the ones that GAINAX and the languages have given us. Our interpretations are meaningless. They can prove nothing, and do no good. They are merely words, one bickering with another. I have attempted to correct this in my own interpretation, and now only the words of GAINAX and the dictionaries are true.
The words in the non-GAINAX translations may or may not be true. They are not canon, and therefore we can make no assumptions. There is no solid evidence that these translations are correct or incorrect, and I have *not* stated that only the ones that *I* provide are true.
And that is why I have resorted to dictionaries and the RCB.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the oldeva