i more than agree with this peter
& would only add that boundaries as we know them today
& a fortiori their boundaries aka the tps
appear to mark the very crossing point between nature & culture
since they can be identified as a specifically
early to mid 2nd millennium
west european
cultural adaptation & refinement of an apparently purely natural
immemorial worldwide phenomenon that does not normally manifest in the
form of fine lines & still finer points established by the finest of
diplomatic representation & documentation
but of quite approximate & diffused frontiers & of intermediary marches &
of no mans lands & various other makeshift accommodations to necessity
all commingling everywhere as fluidly as the weather itself thru periods of
contest & standoff & detente
m
er one more thing
which is
if you dig it you own it
>
>I like this little philosophical reflection of yours, Michael. I
>agree that boundaries, and singularities all the more, are removed
>from reality. They exist, but don't take up any space. They HAVE to
>exist, because they are needed in order for countries to exist. I
>would say that these things are things that belong to nature, just
>like forces. You can't grab forces. You can't own them. But you can
>prove they're there. And if you can't prove it, you can work with
>them in order to prove other things (I hope I make myself clear, I'm
>not a physician or mathematician). So I would say the quadripoint
>doesn't belong to anybody, because it simply CAN'T BE OWNED.
>
>BUT: If you want to put a marker on the spot, the marker will
>obviously take up German and Austrian space. So it seems a good idea
>to be practical, for day-to-day-life's sake, and say that the
>point 'belongs' to both countries.
>
>Peter S.
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> i have been toying with a different approach to this question
>>
>>
>> clearly countries are 3 dimensional objects & are therefore real
>> or what i would rather call apparently real
>>
>> their territorial areas are 2 dimensional forms & purely
>representational
>> of this reality or apparent reality
>> tho they do enjoy a sort of subsidiary apparent reality because
>everyone
>> believes they are real too
>>
>> their boundaries are the 1 dimensional cracks enclosing &
>separating their
>> purely representational forms & are thus a further abstraction &
>therefore
>> at least doubly remote from being apparently real
>>
>> & finally their most curious & frankly suspicious effect
>> namely their tripoints & other multipoints
>> are the zero dimensional holes between the cracks between the
>> representations of apparent reality
>> & so these are relatively the most apparently unreal of all
>> or if you prefer absolutely apparently unreal
>> or at least somehow well beyond what we normally call real
>>
>> & so everyone will tell you
>> well these points dont really exist
>> & it is a remarkable paradox you will just have to eat
>>
>>
>> boundary cross points by contrast do actually leave this world
>momentarily
>> like an electrical spark somehow jumping out of its insulation
>>
>> so these rarest & most suspicious phenomena are beyond beyond if
>you will
>> having a dimensionality that might be expressed however implausibly
>as
>> minus 1
>>
>>
>>
>> now it is my guess that one reason why we are all so fascinated by
>> boundaries is that we intuitively recognize them as cracks in normal
>> apparent reality
>> & therefore as openings into nonnormal reality
>> & moreover some of us are even more nuts about the tripoints in
>particular
>> because we can recognize them for the absolutely brilliant hot
>spots in
>> reality that they are
>>
>> like they really shouldnt ought to exist somehow
>> but somehow they almost do manage to pull it off
>>
>> they are nearly but not quite physical openings into nonphysical
>reality
>>
>> manmade but still natural white holes in the fabric of continuity
>>
>> in short they are openings into the absolute
>> the totality
>> all that is
>> which in reality we ourselves also are
>> but we just usually cant see this very well from where we are
>>
>> so the point & the pointer are one because all is one
>> & it is you yourself who are holding austria together
>> as well as germany together
>> as well as yourself & indeed all that is together
>> when you focus on that funny little point
>>
>> & it is only because the world is really upside down that reality
>seems
>> like illusion & illusion seems like reality
>>
>> in real absolute reality there are no countries nor territories nor
>> boundaries nor even any points
>> & the world is equally free for all
>>
>> in that reality there is only inner being
>> comprising thought & feeling & sensation
>> of which it is all one gigantic condo
>> which i would & do seriously call everyones land
>>
>>
>> so it seems to me that multi pointing or even just try pointing is
>a very
>> effective way of challenging & freeing oneself from all the
>delusions of
>> individuated physical reality
>>
>> & a crossing point on a mountain top or in a cornfield or forest
>> or even just any old monster rock or quintipoint
>> or whatever other marvel works for you
>> might provide a particularly good opportunity & spot to do that
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>Jungholz is connected to the rest of Austria by a single point.
>That is
>> >>alrady established.
>> >>
>> >>On the other hand Germany is also connected with herself at that
>point.
>> >>Right?
>> >
>> >Right
>> >
>> >
>> >So if Germany is connected is then Jungholz disconnected ie an
>enclave?
>> >>
>> >No. BOTH are connected there, and yet both disconnected. That is
>why single
>> >points are called singularities, because they are truly singular!
>> >
>> >
>> >>Who owns the point?
>> >BOTH
>> >
>> >
>> >No man's land or a condominium? If point is a no man's land then
>Jungholz is
>> >a fragtment (as it is touched by no man's land and Germany).
>> >>
>> >>If condominium then Jungholz is also a fragtment as it is touched
>by
>> >>Germany/Austria and Austria!
>> >
>> >It is 100% surrounded by Germany, and at the same time is not
>disconnected
>> >fomr Austria.
>> >It is not a fragment, or an enclave as it is not disconnected.
>> >
>> >Let's take another exmaple. On the Dutch-German border, the border
>must be a
>> >string of points. Who owns them? If Germany owns them, then the
>border is
>> >the NEXt set of points to the west. And vice versa if Holland owns
>them.
>> >If neither own them then Germany does not border Holland, it
>borders a
>> >neutral zone and you have to ask what about the points along THAT
>border...
>> >A border is an infinitely thin line, but it must be a point. It
>must exist.
>> >It is not the gap between a German point and a Dutch point.
>Because if there
>> >is a gap, there must be ap oint to fill it.
>> >For every point m and n, where n>m, there exists a point p such
>that m<p<n.
>> >Ad infinitum.
>> >We get into mathematics here. It's beutiful. Even if you were only
>as wide
>> >as a single point, you could not get to Jungholz fomr austrai
>without
>> >violating German sovereignty (which is probably not a wise thing
>to do ;)
>> >).
>> >And vice versa for crossing the point from Germany to Germany.
>> >Even more so for objects in the real world that DO have width.
>> >
>> >So while Jungholz cannot access austrai without violating Germn
>soil, yet at
>> >the same time Germans cannot encircle Jungholz without leaving
>Germany and
>> >violating Austria.
>> >
>> >It's a paradox!
>> >
>> >It's a frozen snapshot of that instant in time when two waterdrops
>join to
>> >one, or one splits into two. It is quite remarkable.
>> >
>> >B
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=163100.1357384.2947150.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=5
>24804/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=2629" target="_top">Cick here
>for Classmates.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of Service.