Korean Job Discussion Forums

marlow · Joined: 06 Feb 2005

If a Tree Falls - Bruce Cockburn

Rain forest
Mist and mystery
Teeming green
Green brain facing labotomy
Climate control centre for the world
Ancient cord of coexistence
Hacked by parasitic greedhead scam -
From Sarawak to Amazonas
Costa Rica to mangy B.C. hills -
Cortege rhythm of falling timber.

What kind of currency grows in these new deserts,
These brand new flood plains?

If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
Anybody hear the forest fall?

Cut and move on
Cut and move on
Take out trees
Take out wildlife at a rate of species every single day
Take out people who've lived with this for 100,000 years -
Inject a billion burgers worth of beef -
Grain eaters - methane dispensers.

Through thinning ozone,
Waves fall on wrinkled earth -
Gravity, light, ancient refuse of stars,
Speak of a drowning -
But this, this is something other.
Busy monster eats dark holes in the spirit world
Where wild things have to go
To disappear
Forever

If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
Anybody hear the forest fall?

anyway · Joined: 22 Oct 2005

The simple answer : Chuck Norris hears each and every tree fall in the forest.

Chow · Joined: 24 Nov 2005 Location: Cheongju

Berkely continued to used the "to be is to be perceived" maxim as a proof for the existence of God (if memory serves). He concluded that since it is patently absurd (prior to quantum theory) to conclude that an object doesn't exist unless it is being observed, that God perceives all . . . .

It's been awhile . . . . I could be wrong.

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

You're correct, Chow.

The Cube · Joined: 01 Feb 2003

VanIslander · Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:39 pm Post subject:

"patent nonsense"

to quote the philosopher in my signature

Bee Positive · Joined: 27 Oct 2005

Grimalkin · Joined: 22 May 2005

I'm gonna go with the Quantum Theory answer
i.e. that it's unknowable in the absence of a perceiver and that when there is a perceiver that affects the outcome.

I think it's basically the same problem as schrodinger's cat.

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

Some excellent contributions, folks. It gives me pleasure to discuss these weighty matters with men of taste and discernment.

But...the emphasis of the thread hasn't been addressed really: why does the question assume that events occur in the physical world, indeed that a physical world exists at all, in the absence of a seer, yet questions these events making a noise in the absence of a hearer? I just don't get it. It's all perception. cheers.