Can you read between the lines even when the lines are blurred?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    Depends what it is, doesn't it?  

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

     Human traits are too honestly diverse for such notion zxj

     . . . . . . . . . .

     , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 2 months ago

    i always find that anything that is blurred is easy and simple to read 

    oh yes

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    NOT PHILOSOPHY. Wrong forum. Take it to Polls  Surveys. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    That's why Braille was invented.

    };¤)

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Yep using my telepathic ability.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    If my eyesight was failing, then to read between the lines, I'd reach for a magnifying glass to counter act the bleariness! Thank heavens, cognition happens on many levels!  

  • 2 months ago

    I find that reading between the lines usually leads to incorrect assumptions.  When the figurative lines are blurred the problem is compounded.

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Imho, a line is 1-dimensional; if it is "blurred," it is > 1-dimensional (i.e., including fractional dimensions such as 1.5, but more commonly 2 or 3 d, or more).

    A "line of words" is a metaphor for tautological statements:  unambiguous ~ 1-dimensional.  Even if the sentence "line" is part of a set of lines, there is in effect only one "line (of reasoning)."  If this line of reasoning is > 1-d, it is not a line, but a 2- (or more) d field, with Cartesian coordinates at every stated point in the line of reasoning.  Each word in the sentence line carries meanings; if a given word's meaning (facticity and agency) is > 1-d, i.e. it has at least 2 points (meanings) in it, the entire "line" is "blurred" (splayed along at least 2 d), and will likely be subject to rules of first order logic--unless the two points are polar opposites; in this latter Boolean case the Cartesian field of sets aka "line of reasoning" is called "differentiated," with two "lines of reasoning"--e.g., 1-1-2-1 ---> 1-1-a-1 and 1-1-b-1 (a and b being polar opposites, as in a and not-a).  In each case, the line is not "blurred"--it has become subject to analytic geometry by virtue of its > 1-d meaning options.  (In the case of non-Euclidean topologies, each smallest unit local space is reducible to Cartesian-Euclidean metrics.) 

  • 2 months ago

    The lines are never blurred

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.