water \ is a liquid that can give the appearance of being wet through the process of evaporation and perspiration but water is not wet- for example if u wash hands and you take them out of the water then your hands will appear and feel wet because the water has not air dried yet
water is not wet - necessarily - it can be considered a liquid that is a form of perspiration but wet just describes the physical feeling to the human animal and appearance
Dryness is the absence of water, wetness is the presence of water. wet simply means water. Water can not be dry for the fact that water is water. water is wet because wet is water. wet equal water and water equal wet. it is wet, it is water or contains water. It is dry, it is not wet, it does not contains water. I like the post. keep on dropping, Ndungu.
what trips me out is, if you throw water on something , that something BECOMES wet right? so if that something becomes wet , then said like that would emply that it becomes water if wtaer is naruarlly wet. BUT let's say a shirt has water poured on it, does the shirt loose it's identity as a shirt or is it merely a wet shirt, because it has not fully BECOME water, rather it is saturated WITH water and existing as a shirt IN water, even though not fully submerged IN water? hmmmmmm
@donewithitall1 Welcome to the discussion, Ndugu. 'does the shirt loose it's identity as a shirt or is it merely a wet shirt, because it has not fully BECOME water'.. This opens up another interesting Thought: Does 'wet' not actually exist until there is a contact between two forms of matter.. be it solid+liquid, liquid+gas, etc.? Can this be why ice is not 'wet' until it either self-melts or comes in contact with liquid? If so, then 'dry' would not exist.. as it eternally exists with 'wet'..
@TStheEducator And, if by deduction.. 'dry' does not exist.. then it can never be proved whether something is 'wet'.. because wet would not exist, because they are both eternally connected.
@TStheEducator so, initially , wet IS dry or dry IS wet? So how would we classify what we consider "wet" ? We could say " the shirt is saturated WITH water" to explain it's "wetness" without having to use "more" or "less" saturated based on saturation being a complete occurance? This discussion makes me think where did "wet" and "dry " ever manifest as being actual? I joke sometimes while at work when someone asks me how i'm doing . I say " wheww i'm trying to stay cool with all..
@donewithitall1 this heat out side" knowing that it's really cold outside(at least down here in texas right now), In my head I'm thinking about how cold IS hot and vice versa , but each with varying intensities of each other....so then why do we find need to classify these as differences? I briefly saw a vision of the "bible" page in revelations speaking on lukewarmness and how "christ" or the Spirit was making a point that it is better to be either hot OR cold.....
Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
Verb:
Cover or touch with liquid; moisten: "he wet a finger".
Noun:
Liquid that makes something damp: "the wet of his tears".
^from google^
i think that the water is not wet, as i belive that wet means a solid with liquid on it. but tbh ive only been thinking about it for like a min or two so i may be wrong, but thats what i would say
@hawk12399 Welcome to the discussion, and I greatly appreciate your Analysis. First, I would like to clear up that you are not 'wrong' in any way. That is the purpose of this exercise.. to delve deeper into a subject with every offered Analysis. That said.. 'i think that the water is not wet, as i belive that wet means a solid with liquid on it'.. Ice (water) is a solid, but it is still water. When you pour water on ice, it tends to 'melt'.. but it can also self-melt and make itself 'wet'...
@hawk12399 Good viewpoint. To this I will say.. 'but if the water was dry, the water wouldnt be there'.. So, by Logical deduction.. you are saying that water must be 'wet'.. because, if it were dry, then 'the water wouldnt be there'. Now, if this is the case.. then how can it be proved that water itself is actually 'wet'? To add a spin to your view.. I will ask how can it actually be proved that water is 'dry', if.. when water is 'dry'.. it is not there'?
@TStheEducator Wet=Wat=Wate=Water. Water is wet, water is water. Things get wet or water. If it does not sound wrong to say that water is water, then it would also be all alright to say Water is wet. if water gets water, then water gets wet.
@hawk12399 Steam can not be 100%, cuz steam is water and Air, percentage of wetness. When it comes to 100% wet, then it is no longer steam it is now water.
@MojitoJunior Shikhama Mwenzi.. and welcome to the discussion. 'I guess we can say that water is NOT wet because IT IS wet.. Lol. I can get mad @ this!!'.. If you do, it means you are Thinking.. which is what We want here in Study Hall. You do, however, present another interesting paradox. By saying 'water is NOT wet'.. can this mean (1) it can not be *described* as 'wet'.... because..... (2) 'IT IS wet', thus shifting from the *description AS* wet to the *definition OF* wet [water='wet']?
Well.. I would say that "WET" is an adjective we use to describe something that normally is dry. Like we use to say that something is dirty when its usual condition is clean. When you touch a fish you'd say that it's slimy rather than wet, because being wet is its normal condition. So basically I would say that water is NOT wet because is its normal condition. Everything can be wet when gets in contact with water. Everything but water. If you put water on water, it will not change its status. S
@MojitoJunior Excellent presentation. 'So basically I would say that water is NOT wet because is its normal condition'.. If this is the case.. and when (a) 'clean' becomes 'dirty', (b) 'wet fish' become 'slimy fish', etc.. then can 'water' become 'dry', and still maintain its form as 'water', since 'wet' is its 'normal condition'? If this is not possible, then maybe We are forced to define 'wet' as something more than an adjective..
i believe this question can not be answered due to the way people can break something down that may not be necessary to answer. water to me is a delusion of dimensional shapes of all sizes and shapes. Making water adaptable to any shape and size. Space is there but what makes space black, and what make space contain all elements in the cosmos in tact. This is a theory that contains no right or wrong answer but is the aspects of things that i believe that applies the make one think and wounder
@tribeofjudah1 'This is a theory that contains no right or wrong answer but is the aspects of things that i believe that applies the make one think and wounder'.. What you observer here is precisely the purpose of this Question being titled 'Study Hall'. It is a Mental exercise, and a practice of further Analysing.. Critically.. subjects that seemingly have been previously reduced to their lowest common contingent denominators. Much of this practice has been lost during the Ma'afa..
Water is water and when in comes into contact with something foreign, that foreign matter becomes wet. Therefore water itself is not wet and just an element (it is what it is).
We could ask a question 'Is the Sun dry?' It dries what it comes into contact with, but it itself is not dry. That is my humble view on it, interesting nevertheless.
@smithyit Welcome to the discussion. 'Therefore water itself is not wet and just an element (it is what it is)..We could ask a question 'Is the Sun dry?'.. Water definitely 'is what it is'.. but can part of what 'it is' be described as 'wet'? By saying 'water is..just an element'.. can 'wetness' be described further on a molecular level? Does a molecular change in something make it 'wet', or is the new wet 'element' added? If so, whatever compound was 'dry' can no longer be the same compound..
@TStheEducator ..thus making a 'wet granite rock' some completely different rock/compound/object/thing than it was when it was a 'dry granite rock'. But, as you Know.. just because a granite rock is 'wet' does not change the fact that its molecular composition is still what made it 'granite' when it was dry.
Make a flea trap to catch live fleas in the home. Take a wide bowl, or a dinner plate. Add water and dish washing detergent. (The detergent make the water "wetter" and prevent the fleas from being able to jump out of the water)
Put a small lamp above the plate, allowing the light to shine on the plate. Place in a dark room over night. The fleas will be attracted to the light and jump towards it and then fall into the bowl and drown.
@lsatt001 'The detergent make the water "wetter" and prevent the fleas from being able to jump out of the water'.. The tip is much appreciated. Now.. when you say the detergent will make the water 'wetter'.. are you implying that the water was 'wet' to start?
@defect530 Shalawum and welcome to the discussion. 'ok after looking up the definition i would now say "no water is not wet'.. Would you expound upon your findings and personal Analysis?
@defect530 Much appreciated.. however.. I Am forced to equate your statement 'the definition of "wet" is something that is wet' as something similar to: Q: Why is the car fast? A: Well, because it's fast. If you could get deeper into your own Analysis.. it would be further appreciated. 'water is only 2 hydrogen and one oxygen. both of witch are not wet'.. This could be a good start for your view. Can you explain your choice to equate the H2O molecular compound to 'wetness'?
@defect530 I ask because.. to My Knowledge [and I could be wrong].. oil is not comprised of (Hx1)+(Ox2).. at least not exclusively. However, something that is saturated with oil can be described as 'oily'. But if you take this a step in a less-specific direction.. 'oily' being a more specific description.. that item that is saturated with oil could more generally be describe as 'wet'. Again.. 'oil' is not H2O, but it can create 'wetness'. I look forward to your Critical angle..
@defect530 'seems like a paradox then'.. Possibly, but all paradoxes are great exercises in Critical Thinking. And correction on My (Hx1)+(Ox2).. which should have been (Hx2)+(Ox1).. as you have previously stated. By your Analysis.. do you Think there could be an empirical test to show whether or not water is 'wet'? Do you Think the current paradigm of Thinking concerning what 'wet' is can be revised further? Just positing Questions to get you further into the Thought process..
@TStheEducator well i was thinking maybe it's an english thing. maybe in a different language it could be considered wet or not wet. maybe the english language is making it a paradox? i only know english so i can't answer my own question.
@defect530 Overstood.. and your Analysis may very well carry some validity. However, I must clarify that this is not a 'right vs. wrong' Question. It is a matter of Perception, meaning, what is *your* view. Once arriving at your view.. can you build a foundation and structure surrounding your mode of Thought. All of My Lessons and Questions are Critical Thinking and Analytical exercises.. in attempts to open the Eye [Mind] to its fullest potential. With this.. can you dig deeper into your view?
@TStheEducator well i was thinking maybe it's an english thing. maybe in a different language it could be considered wet or not wet. maybe the english language is making it a paradox? i only know english so i can't answer my own question.
well i didnt make it clear when i said heating something. i agree heat can be dry or moist but what is moist heat but steam. what i meant was fire actually. the question correctly stands as can fire be dry?
and the relativity thing i understand u can say water and wet are different. my argument was u cannot separate wet from dry. the virtue of a substance being wet is made by the virtue that it is not dry. now if u remove the element dry from wet then i think wet virtually loses its meaning
@varunnat25 'the question correctly stands as can fire be dry?'.. Which could stand in line with the Question in My video. They both can be equally debated. 'my argument was u cannot separate wet from dry'.. With this I present to you: If wet can not be separated from dry.. can 'water', in its liquid form, ever be considered 'dry'? If this is not the case, then 'water' is *a* substance that does not need the definition of 'dry' to define whether or not it is 'wet'..
as u mentioned water make things wet. the arguing point is that to prove water is wet or not. well we know things are wet when we know how they are when dry. example a wet shirt and a dry shirt. u can make out which is wet and which is dry. but can you make out between a dry water and a wet when?
i hope your answer is no. although it gives an illusion to us that water should be wet but in reality it cant be coz the simple fact that it cant be dry!!!
@varunnat25 'i hope your answer is no. although it gives an illusion to us that water should be wet but in reality it cant be coz the simple fact that it cant be dry!!!'.. This is a great Analysis. To throw a different angle.. Is 'dry' a prerequisite for 'wet'.. and the reverse? Although they are relative on the same scale.. are they actually contingent upon one another? Or can they maintain their own individual identities, properties and existences without the definition of the other?
@TStheEducator well i am sure u must have come across the term relativity...everything is relative. even things which are wet are relatively wet than the drier ones and not actually wet coz wet cannot exist without its counterpart dry. wet is not absolute. so is dry which is also a relative. now if i ask u coz if we heat something it dries thus that mean heat is dry?
@varunnat25 'now if i ask u coz if we heat something it dries thus that mean heat is dry?'.. Good Question, and obviously the answer is no. However, the effects of 'dry' and 'heat' are not contingent, but are possible results of one another. In this case We can witness 'dry heat' and 'moist heat', which have different characteristics of 'heat', but still maintain the same sensation of 'hot'.
@varunnat25 'everything is relative'.. Is practically no different from saying 'Nothing can exist outside of THE ALL, because if it were outside of THE ALL, then THE ALL would not be THE ALL' [Kybalion]. However, even with this in The Eye, We can still break portions into contiguous parts.. such as 'water' and 'wet'. 'Water' is *a* substance that causes things to be *described* as 'wet'. Now, We have separated their relativity.. so can 'water' be *described* as 'wet'?
I think water is just what it is. Water is just a name that we give to a certain structure of molecules, other languages have different names for it but it just is what it is.
Wet is just the word we use to describe an object after it has come in contact with water or a liquid of some sort.
@KarenRebels Welcome to the discussion.. and you offer a good Analysis. 'Water is just a name that we give to a certain structure of molecule'.. With this said.. is 'water' considered 'melted ice', or is 'ice' considered 'melted water'? Both hold validity.. but We also have to follow the distinct properties of the originating state.. which would be that ice is derived from water.. as ice can not exist without water, but water can without ice. [cont.]
@KarenRebels Therefore.. when asking 'Is water wet?'.. One must view the property of water at its most reduced state, without loosing its properties of what makes it distinctly 'water' [not reducing it into its simple molecular components of hydrogen and oxygen]. When We relate the most reduced state 'water' to its *seemingly* most reduced effect 'wet'.. can they actually be applied to one another?
If a person is born blind then the color black would really have no significant meaning, based on the fact that color is not something that can be felt, or smelled but must be seen, because man has put a name to color....to represent what he needs it to...so no to a blind person black is only what someone else tells them it us...
@Yfrmc 'because man has put a name to color..to represent what he needs it to'.. Valid point. However, this could also apply to 'water'. The name given to the natural substance is now called water/H2O/etc. But, whether it has a 'name..to represent' it or not, does not change the differences between its states of liquid and solid. Its natural, un-named properties simply Are.. regardless if 'man has put a name' to it. Further.. Black has no tangible properties, only descriptive. Water is tangible.
Hmm is water wet? water is only wet if we jump in and immerse ourselves in it, but technically that only makes us wet, water is to wet as black is to black, if you were blind would the color black still be black, or would it be something else? Or how about my favorite one, if there is no one in the forrest and a tree falls, does it make any noise??? hmmm what do you have for me TS..... :)
@Yfrmc Welcome to the Study. 'if you were blind would the color black still be black, or would it be something else'.. This is really not an equivalent.. as: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because One does not 'perceive' the existence of something, it does not constitute its in-existence. The same applies to the tree/noise. With 'water/wet'.. We are looking more at.. If water *makes* things wet *and* if water *is* wet.. then.. what would make water wet? Not water..
@lsatt001 Definitely a good observation. In that sense.. would your definition or perception of 'wet' similarly follow the 'glass half empty vs. glass half full...or glass is completely full, just of two different states of matter'?
@TStheEducator umm, well that works too but i was thinking more along the lines of the car is 'wet' but at the same time its dry in many places, so another definition of wet is that water is simply on the car, just as the simple definition of wet being that something has water on it and therefore water cant be wet. water cant be on itself...i compare it to oily...when oil is on the ground the ground is oily but the oil is simply oil. not oily.
@lsatt001 Overstood and good presentation of your Analysis. 'when oil is on the ground the ground is oily but the oil is simply oil. not oily.'.. On this premise.. can We not break down oil into its individual layers.. while still maintaining its structure of 'oil' in its composite form [much like a mountain being formed by layers of sedimentary divisions, yet it is still one mountain]. Could it not be that each varying layer measures a different level of viscosity, the outer being 'oilier'?
@TStheEducator I say this because water as a composition is much more simplified than oil or other substances. More complex compositions would be akin to the samurai sword.. It is made of different metals melted and formed, dipped in water, which causes each metallic layer to dry at differing rates and degrees. This process creates rigidity and strength in the blade. 'Rigid' describes the blade.. but is the blade rigid from two separate 'rigid' metals, or are they only 'rigid' when combined?
@TStheEducator wow educator ima need to go google define what oil is made of and what viscosity means in order to comprehend that one. ur thinking level is deep! do u say that because when oil is on the ground its not the same oil thats in the engine or in the bottle?
@lsatt001 'do u say that because when oil is on the ground its not the same oil thats in the engine or in the bottle?'.. I say this on the grounds of oil being comprised of substances that can be separated.. which is how you get 'diesel'..which differs from 'kerosene'..which differs from 'gas'...yet are all made from the same 'crude oil'. Diesel, in texture, is more 'oily' than Gas.. yet their petroleum origin carries the properties of both. So, if One part is 'oily'.. is not also the whole?
The answer depeneds on the criteria you choose: wet, wetter = a quality, not a thing. = a state where the relationship between two substances is the ability of one is to soak into the other.
@HorEmAkhtHorus Shaluwam.. and welcome to the discussion. '..depeneds on the criteria you choose'.. I like the Thought process on the 'quality, not a thing'. In this reference, however, some will argue that a quality Is a thing.. just a 'thing' in the realms of the non-physical. Similar is the state of extreme elation.. happiness/elation/anger/etc. are not 'things'.. yet they exist within the Eye [felt] with much Realism. In saying 'not always'.. would you present the 'is-is not' variations..
@TStheEducator Shaluwam, brother. . ."just a 'thing' in the realms of the non-physical" This is exactly where all "Things" exist; it is a state we call"Nu" matter. Now when we conceptulize something, do we move it from Nu matter to Geb matter? Or is all existence inside each and every one of us where "reality" is acted out?
From when you understand the nature of Things, "Is-is not" reverts to a relative opinion.
@TStheEducator The Nature of things. Things do not have an existence in their own right. They come into being due to our interests. Let me show you . .how many Tets are there in this post so far? = meaningless. Now, let me create: A Tets is when the second or third letter following a "T" is an "E" . . . = 11 Tets, if you count the first one twice. Now Tets exist as a thing that can be quantified, and with qualities that can be debated!
How does this differ from the origin of any other "thing"?
@HorEmAkhtHorus Ra Sia.. Appreciated.. however I do Overstand the Khama'atan Principles.. and also the 7 Hermetic derivatives. You present good insight of them, and are accurate in the concept of 'is-is not..relative opinion'. If you Study the Lessons, I do state that there is no such thing as 'right/wrong', 'good/bad' in Reality... they are merely gradations of the same thing. This is the supreme purpose of Critical Thinking.. to open the Eye to All sides of a 'thing'. Excellent response..
I would have anwsered, "yes" right away, but after listening to your presentation and reading the comments, now I'm not so sure.....I enjoyed this. Thanks =0)
@Izache1313 Sekhoma'ati.. Your response is much appreciated. As you Know.. My efforts are Always to awaken the Eye from the forced Psychological subjugation of the Ma'afa. However, even when I Am not directly addressing the obvious [Afu-Ra-Ka, slavery, bible, etc.].. I Never stray from the mission to re-awaken the Critical Thinking faculties of that Powerful Eye [Eye of Haru.. The Mind]. Regardless of 'yes vs. no'.. what would be your Thought process in either way.. or both?
@TStheEducator ...I'm embarrassed but I won't lie...my thought process tells me that yes, water is wet...if someone had presented this question to me, without the comments here to refer to, my anwser would have been a quick yes; and then I would have looked at the person like they were crazy or something. ...but that's why I enjoy your lessons because they make me expand my thinking...my intellect is infant at best. =)
@Izache1313 'I enjoy your lessons because they make me expand my thinking'.. Which is the purpose of them in the first place. Said best by Cheikh Anta Diop: 'We need to raise an Army of Scholars'. After I heard this quote, I have diligently tried to not only expand the Thinking of My People..but first and foremost My Own and that of My Daughter's. 'my intellect is infant at best'.. Every Great Scholar started with the 'Infant Intellect'..and with Light..We grow. What is your Reasoning for 'yes'?
@TStheEducator ...ah bro...thank you for the encouraging words. My reasoning for 'yes'? ...um...well, I would have to say just because of how I relate wetness to water I guess...
@Izache1313 'because of how I relate wetness to water I guess'.. So in essence.. your perspective would be the antithesis of what I previously asked Canadarocksish about the 0 Principle and the Principle of 1?
@TStheEducator ...ah! I didn't even think of it that way! ...I suck at math, but reading the explanation in quotations tickled my brain. When you say that 'wet' and 'burn' are "creations" of Water and Fire it made me ponder the original question again...so is water wet or does water make things wet...lol...this is fun...it took my brain a minute to wrap my mind around the principle of 0 and 1.
@Izache1313 Interesting exercise We are engaging in.. very, very beneficial. This is the intent.. to wake up that Analytical Eye. This is also why I mentioned the chemical processes and formulations that are added to Water to make it 'wet-er'.. but, when has it been established that Water was 'wet' in the First place? To Me.. it is even more of a challenge to stabilize a 'constant vs. variable' equation with this Question that it is to do so with the 'Chicken vs. Egg' paradox..
@TStheEducator ...beneficial indeed...and I thank you for allowing me to participate. I learned something today and had fun doing it. Namaste, my dear friend.
@Izache1313 Hutuapo.. When We learn to Properly use Our Minds.. We will find that there is no Real 'right' or 'wrong' answer to anything. The important aspect of Critical Thinking and Analyzing Knowledge is What to do with it. Hoarding Knowledge is more perilous than hoarding diamonds and gold. I look forward to any and all of your comments..
@Natasha4552 Shalwumekh.. The comment is much appreciated. What you state is the given effect.. the 'Known Factor', so to speak. It is the 'effect' or 'result' of the object/people coming in contact with water. However, is there any way to reach a conclusion that Water Itself is/is not 'wet'.. and in either case, can either be done through empirical Study?
@Natasha4552 Also Overstood.. Therefore, is your viewpoint asserting that it depends on the State of the Water that will determine its 'wetness'? If so.. We would have to re-examine the basic formulation of Ice [solid], which is Water [liquid]. That being said.. when the Ice melts, it makes Itself 'wet' from its own properties [with the added element of Heat]. Since Ice is made of Water.. and 'wet-ens' when reduced to its Water state.. then is Water in its Liquid State 'wet'? Back full circle..
@Natasha4552 It is agreed that you are speaking about the 'effect' of the spillage. However, I Am asking all to present views on the Water Itself.. Before the 'result' of the spilling/pouring/etc.
it can partially depend on the definition of 'wet'. I would refer to things that are wet when water is soaked in it or on the object (pretty much anything that isn't dry). It might also depend on the object. for instance, a wet shirt has water in it, but so does juice, we would call the shirt wet but not the juice (but the juice jug would be wet). But water isn't wet because it is water. Fire itself does not burn but wood can have fire and burn. Water causes things to be wet but isn't wet itself
@Canadarocksish Excellent analysis and presentation of Thought. So.. in essence.. 'wet' and 'burn' are creations of Water and Fire, respectively? Meaning.. Water and Fire would be the 0 Principle [the Nothingness before Something], whereas 'wet' and 'burn' would be the Principle of 1 [the Something from Nothingness]?
HOTEP PEACE, DO YOU HAVE A EMAIL LINK MY BROTHER?
bklynnuyork 2 months ago
water \ is a liquid that can give the appearance of being wet through the process of evaporation and perspiration but water is not wet- for example if u wash hands and you take them out of the water then your hands will appear and feel wet because the water has not air dried yet
water is not wet - necessarily - it can be considered a liquid that is a form of perspiration but wet just describes the physical feeling to the human animal and appearance
jm91982 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dryness is the absence of water, wetness is the presence of water. wet simply means water. Water can not be dry for the fact that water is water. water is wet because wet is water. wet equal water and water equal wet. it is wet, it is water or contains water. It is dry, it is not wet, it does not contains water. I like the post. keep on dropping, Ndungu.
Mumbundu 2 months ago
Comment removed
Mumbundu 2 months ago
what trips me out is, if you throw water on something , that something BECOMES wet right? so if that something becomes wet , then said like that would emply that it becomes water if wtaer is naruarlly wet. BUT let's say a shirt has water poured on it, does the shirt loose it's identity as a shirt or is it merely a wet shirt, because it has not fully BECOME water, rather it is saturated WITH water and existing as a shirt IN water, even though not fully submerged IN water? hmmmmmm
donewithitall1 2 months ago
@donewithitall1 Welcome to the discussion, Ndugu. 'does the shirt loose it's identity as a shirt or is it merely a wet shirt, because it has not fully BECOME water'.. This opens up another interesting Thought: Does 'wet' not actually exist until there is a contact between two forms of matter.. be it solid+liquid, liquid+gas, etc.? Can this be why ice is not 'wet' until it either self-melts or comes in contact with liquid? If so, then 'dry' would not exist.. as it eternally exists with 'wet'..
TStheEducator 2 months ago
@TStheEducator And, if by deduction.. 'dry' does not exist.. then it can never be proved whether something is 'wet'.. because wet would not exist, because they are both eternally connected.
TStheEducator 2 months ago
@TStheEducator so, initially , wet IS dry or dry IS wet? So how would we classify what we consider "wet" ? We could say " the shirt is saturated WITH water" to explain it's "wetness" without having to use "more" or "less" saturated based on saturation being a complete occurance? This discussion makes me think where did "wet" and "dry " ever manifest as being actual? I joke sometimes while at work when someone asks me how i'm doing . I say " wheww i'm trying to stay cool with all..
donewithitall1 2 months ago
@donewithitall1 this heat out side" knowing that it's really cold outside(at least down here in texas right now), In my head I'm thinking about how cold IS hot and vice versa , but each with varying intensities of each other....so then why do we find need to classify these as differences? I briefly saw a vision of the "bible" page in revelations speaking on lukewarmness and how "christ" or the Spirit was making a point that it is better to be either hot OR cold.....
donewithitall1 2 months ago
@donewithitall1 "shirt IN water" or water IN shirt
donewithitall1 2 months ago
Adjective:
Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
Verb:
Cover or touch with liquid; moisten: "he wet a finger".
Noun:
Liquid that makes something damp: "the wet of his tears".
^from google^
i think that the water is not wet, as i belive that wet means a solid with liquid on it. but tbh ive only been thinking about it for like a min or two so i may be wrong, but thats what i would say
hawk12399 4 months ago
@hawk12399 Welcome to the discussion, and I greatly appreciate your Analysis. First, I would like to clear up that you are not 'wrong' in any way. That is the purpose of this exercise.. to delve deeper into a subject with every offered Analysis. That said.. 'i think that the water is not wet, as i belive that wet means a solid with liquid on it'.. Ice (water) is a solid, but it is still water. When you pour water on ice, it tends to 'melt'.. but it can also self-melt and make itself 'wet'...
TStheEducator 3 months ago
@TStheEducator [cont.] Therefore.. If ice is a solid, yet melts into water and becomes 'wet' in the process.. at what point is:
1. the solid ice 'wet', and
2. the liquid water is 'not wet'..
..if they are both the same 'water'?
Would this not mean that, somewhere in the process of the solid ice melting into the liquid water.. the 'water' *itself* would have to be 'wet'?
TStheEducator 3 months ago
@TStheEducator but if the water was dry, the water wouldnt be there. ice is wet, and steam is wet, infact there 1OO% wet. thats my opinion
hawk12399 2 months ago
@hawk12399 Good viewpoint. To this I will say.. 'but if the water was dry, the water wouldnt be there'.. So, by Logical deduction.. you are saying that water must be 'wet'.. because, if it were dry, then 'the water wouldnt be there'. Now, if this is the case.. then how can it be proved that water itself is actually 'wet'? To add a spin to your view.. I will ask how can it actually be proved that water is 'dry', if.. when water is 'dry'.. it is not there'?
TStheEducator 2 months ago
@TStheEducator Wet=Wat=Wate=Water. Water is wet, water is water. Things get wet or water. If it does not sound wrong to say that water is water, then it would also be all alright to say Water is wet. if water gets water, then water gets wet.
Mumbundu 2 months ago
@hawk12399 Steam can not be 100%, cuz steam is water and Air, percentage of wetness. When it comes to 100% wet, then it is no longer steam it is now water.
Mumbundu 2 months ago
So you can't get the water wet. I guess we can say that water is NOT wet because IT IS wet.. Lol. I can get mad @ this!!
MojitoJunior 5 months ago
@MojitoJunior Shikhama Mwenzi.. and welcome to the discussion. 'I guess we can say that water is NOT wet because IT IS wet.. Lol. I can get mad @ this!!'.. If you do, it means you are Thinking.. which is what We want here in Study Hall. You do, however, present another interesting paradox. By saying 'water is NOT wet'.. can this mean (1) it can not be *described* as 'wet'.... because..... (2) 'IT IS wet', thus shifting from the *description AS* wet to the *definition OF* wet [water='wet']?
TStheEducator 5 months ago
Well.. I would say that "WET" is an adjective we use to describe something that normally is dry. Like we use to say that something is dirty when its usual condition is clean. When you touch a fish you'd say that it's slimy rather than wet, because being wet is its normal condition. So basically I would say that water is NOT wet because is its normal condition. Everything can be wet when gets in contact with water. Everything but water. If you put water on water, it will not change its status. S
MojitoJunior 5 months ago
@MojitoJunior Excellent presentation. 'So basically I would say that water is NOT wet because is its normal condition'.. If this is the case.. and when (a) 'clean' becomes 'dirty', (b) 'wet fish' become 'slimy fish', etc.. then can 'water' become 'dry', and still maintain its form as 'water', since 'wet' is its 'normal condition'? If this is not possible, then maybe We are forced to define 'wet' as something more than an adjective..
TStheEducator 3 months ago
i believe this question can not be answered due to the way people can break something down that may not be necessary to answer. water to me is a delusion of dimensional shapes of all sizes and shapes. Making water adaptable to any shape and size. Space is there but what makes space black, and what make space contain all elements in the cosmos in tact. This is a theory that contains no right or wrong answer but is the aspects of things that i believe that applies the make one think and wounder
tribeofjudah1 6 months ago in playlist More videos from TStheEducator
@tribeofjudah1 'This is a theory that contains no right or wrong answer but is the aspects of things that i believe that applies the make one think and wounder'.. What you observer here is precisely the purpose of this Question being titled 'Study Hall'. It is a Mental exercise, and a practice of further Analysing.. Critically.. subjects that seemingly have been previously reduced to their lowest common contingent denominators. Much of this practice has been lost during the Ma'afa..
TStheEducator 6 months ago
Water is water and when in comes into contact with something foreign, that foreign matter becomes wet. Therefore water itself is not wet and just an element (it is what it is).
We could ask a question 'Is the Sun dry?' It dries what it comes into contact with, but it itself is not dry. That is my humble view on it, interesting nevertheless.
smithyit 6 months ago
@smithyit Welcome to the discussion. 'Therefore water itself is not wet and just an element (it is what it is)..We could ask a question 'Is the Sun dry?'.. Water definitely 'is what it is'.. but can part of what 'it is' be described as 'wet'? By saying 'water is..just an element'.. can 'wetness' be described further on a molecular level? Does a molecular change in something make it 'wet', or is the new wet 'element' added? If so, whatever compound was 'dry' can no longer be the same compound..
TStheEducator 6 months ago
@TStheEducator ..thus making a 'wet granite rock' some completely different rock/compound/object/thing than it was when it was a 'dry granite rock'. But, as you Know.. just because a granite rock is 'wet' does not change the fact that its molecular composition is still what made it 'granite' when it was dry.
TStheEducator 6 months ago
Make a flea trap to catch live fleas in the home. Take a wide bowl, or a dinner plate. Add water and dish washing detergent. (The detergent make the water "wetter" and prevent the fleas from being able to jump out of the water)
Put a small lamp above the plate, allowing the light to shine on the plate. Place in a dark room over night. The fleas will be attracted to the light and jump towards it and then fall into the bowl and drown.
lsatt001 8 months ago
@lsatt001 'The detergent make the water "wetter" and prevent the fleas from being able to jump out of the water'.. The tip is much appreciated. Now.. when you say the detergent will make the water 'wetter'.. are you implying that the water was 'wet' to start?
TStheEducator 8 months ago
ok after looking up the definition i would now say "no water is not wet ".
defect530 11 months ago
@defect530 Shalawum and welcome to the discussion. 'ok after looking up the definition i would now say "no water is not wet'.. Would you expound upon your findings and personal Analysis?
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@TStheEducator the definition of "wet" is something that is wet. water is only 2 hydrogen and one oxygen. both of witch are not wet.
defect530 10 months ago
@defect530 Much appreciated.. however.. I Am forced to equate your statement 'the definition of "wet" is something that is wet' as something similar to: Q: Why is the car fast? A: Well, because it's fast. If you could get deeper into your own Analysis.. it would be further appreciated. 'water is only 2 hydrogen and one oxygen. both of witch are not wet'.. This could be a good start for your view. Can you explain your choice to equate the H2O molecular compound to 'wetness'?
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@defect530 I ask because.. to My Knowledge [and I could be wrong].. oil is not comprised of (Hx1)+(Ox2).. at least not exclusively. However, something that is saturated with oil can be described as 'oily'. But if you take this a step in a less-specific direction.. 'oily' being a more specific description.. that item that is saturated with oil could more generally be describe as 'wet'. Again.. 'oil' is not H2O, but it can create 'wetness'. I look forward to your Critical angle..
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@TStheEducator seems like a paradox then.
defect530 10 months ago
@defect530 'seems like a paradox then'.. Possibly, but all paradoxes are great exercises in Critical Thinking. And correction on My (Hx1)+(Ox2).. which should have been (Hx2)+(Ox1).. as you have previously stated. By your Analysis.. do you Think there could be an empirical test to show whether or not water is 'wet'? Do you Think the current paradigm of Thinking concerning what 'wet' is can be revised further? Just positing Questions to get you further into the Thought process..
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@TStheEducator well i was thinking maybe it's an english thing. maybe in a different language it could be considered wet or not wet. maybe the english language is making it a paradox? i only know english so i can't answer my own question.
defect530 10 months ago
@defect530 Overstood.. and your Analysis may very well carry some validity. However, I must clarify that this is not a 'right vs. wrong' Question. It is a matter of Perception, meaning, what is *your* view. Once arriving at your view.. can you build a foundation and structure surrounding your mode of Thought. All of My Lessons and Questions are Critical Thinking and Analytical exercises.. in attempts to open the Eye [Mind] to its fullest potential. With this.. can you dig deeper into your view?
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@TStheEducator i cant dig any deeper than that sorry.
defect530 10 months ago
@defect530 Not a problem. If Light comes to you on the topic.. always feel free to post. Shalawum..
TStheEducator 10 months ago
@TStheEducator well i was thinking maybe it's an english thing. maybe in a different language it could be considered wet or not wet. maybe the english language is making it a paradox? i only know english so i can't answer my own question.
defect530 10 months ago
if you asked me that i would tell you to describe "wet"
defect530 11 months ago
well i didnt make it clear when i said heating something. i agree heat can be dry or moist but what is moist heat but steam. what i meant was fire actually. the question correctly stands as can fire be dry?
and the relativity thing i understand u can say water and wet are different. my argument was u cannot separate wet from dry. the virtue of a substance being wet is made by the virtue that it is not dry. now if u remove the element dry from wet then i think wet virtually loses its meaning
varunnat25 11 months ago
@varunnat25 'the question correctly stands as can fire be dry?'.. Which could stand in line with the Question in My video. They both can be equally debated. 'my argument was u cannot separate wet from dry'.. With this I present to you: If wet can not be separated from dry.. can 'water', in its liquid form, ever be considered 'dry'? If this is not the case, then 'water' is *a* substance that does not need the definition of 'dry' to define whether or not it is 'wet'..
TStheEducator 10 months ago
as u mentioned water make things wet. the arguing point is that to prove water is wet or not. well we know things are wet when we know how they are when dry. example a wet shirt and a dry shirt. u can make out which is wet and which is dry. but can you make out between a dry water and a wet when?
i hope your answer is no. although it gives an illusion to us that water should be wet but in reality it cant be coz the simple fact that it cant be dry!!!
varunnat25 1 year ago
@varunnat25 'i hope your answer is no. although it gives an illusion to us that water should be wet but in reality it cant be coz the simple fact that it cant be dry!!!'.. This is a great Analysis. To throw a different angle.. Is 'dry' a prerequisite for 'wet'.. and the reverse? Although they are relative on the same scale.. are they actually contingent upon one another? Or can they maintain their own individual identities, properties and existences without the definition of the other?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator well i am sure u must have come across the term relativity...everything is relative. even things which are wet are relatively wet than the drier ones and not actually wet coz wet cannot exist without its counterpart dry. wet is not absolute. so is dry which is also a relative. now if i ask u coz if we heat something it dries thus that mean heat is dry?
varunnat25 11 months ago
@varunnat25 'now if i ask u coz if we heat something it dries thus that mean heat is dry?'.. Good Question, and obviously the answer is no. However, the effects of 'dry' and 'heat' are not contingent, but are possible results of one another. In this case We can witness 'dry heat' and 'moist heat', which have different characteristics of 'heat', but still maintain the same sensation of 'hot'.
TStheEducator 11 months ago
@varunnat25 'everything is relative'.. Is practically no different from saying 'Nothing can exist outside of THE ALL, because if it were outside of THE ALL, then THE ALL would not be THE ALL' [Kybalion]. However, even with this in The Eye, We can still break portions into contiguous parts.. such as 'water' and 'wet'. 'Water' is *a* substance that causes things to be *described* as 'wet'. Now, We have separated their relativity.. so can 'water' be *described* as 'wet'?
TStheEducator 11 months ago
I think water is just what it is. Water is just a name that we give to a certain structure of molecules, other languages have different names for it but it just is what it is.
Wet is just the word we use to describe an object after it has come in contact with water or a liquid of some sort.
KarenRebels 1 year ago
@KarenRebels Welcome to the discussion.. and you offer a good Analysis. 'Water is just a name that we give to a certain structure of molecule'.. With this said.. is 'water' considered 'melted ice', or is 'ice' considered 'melted water'? Both hold validity.. but We also have to follow the distinct properties of the originating state.. which would be that ice is derived from water.. as ice can not exist without water, but water can without ice. [cont.]
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Correction.. *is 'ice' considered 'frozen water'*
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator hotep peace, do you have an email my brother?
bklynnuyork 2 months ago
@bklynnuyork Shikhama.. I indeed do. I will e'mail it to you, Ndugu..
TStheEducator 2 months ago
@KarenRebels Therefore.. when asking 'Is water wet?'.. One must view the property of water at its most reduced state, without loosing its properties of what makes it distinctly 'water' [not reducing it into its simple molecular components of hydrogen and oxygen]. When We relate the most reduced state 'water' to its *seemingly* most reduced effect 'wet'.. can they actually be applied to one another?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
If a person is born blind then the color black would really have no significant meaning, based on the fact that color is not something that can be felt, or smelled but must be seen, because man has put a name to color....to represent what he needs it to...so no to a blind person black is only what someone else tells them it us...
Yfrmc 1 year ago
@Yfrmc 'because man has put a name to color..to represent what he needs it to'.. Valid point. However, this could also apply to 'water'. The name given to the natural substance is now called water/H2O/etc. But, whether it has a 'name..to represent' it or not, does not change the differences between its states of liquid and solid. Its natural, un-named properties simply Are.. regardless if 'man has put a name' to it. Further.. Black has no tangible properties, only descriptive. Water is tangible.
TStheEducator 1 year ago
Hmm is water wet? water is only wet if we jump in and immerse ourselves in it, but technically that only makes us wet, water is to wet as black is to black, if you were blind would the color black still be black, or would it be something else? Or how about my favorite one, if there is no one in the forrest and a tree falls, does it make any noise??? hmmm what do you have for me TS..... :)
Yfrmc 1 year ago
@Yfrmc Welcome to the Study. 'if you were blind would the color black still be black, or would it be something else'.. This is really not an equivalent.. as: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because One does not 'perceive' the existence of something, it does not constitute its in-existence. The same applies to the tree/noise. With 'water/wet'.. We are looking more at.. If water *makes* things wet *and* if water *is* wet.. then.. what would make water wet? Not water..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator ..as pouring new water [water B] on the original water [water A] will not make the original water [A] 'wetter'.
TStheEducator 1 year ago
why is wet ; wet ?
bossbxtch89 1 year ago 2
@bossbxtch89 Shaluwam and welcome to the discussion. The Question is Why is Water wet?..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
when my car is wet, it is actually dry between the drops
lsatt001 1 year ago
@lsatt001 Definitely a good observation. In that sense.. would your definition or perception of 'wet' similarly follow the 'glass half empty vs. glass half full...or glass is completely full, just of two different states of matter'?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator umm, well that works too but i was thinking more along the lines of the car is 'wet' but at the same time its dry in many places, so another definition of wet is that water is simply on the car, just as the simple definition of wet being that something has water on it and therefore water cant be wet. water cant be on itself...i compare it to oily...when oil is on the ground the ground is oily but the oil is simply oil. not oily.
lsatt001 1 year ago
@lsatt001 Overstood and good presentation of your Analysis. 'when oil is on the ground the ground is oily but the oil is simply oil. not oily.'.. On this premise.. can We not break down oil into its individual layers.. while still maintaining its structure of 'oil' in its composite form [much like a mountain being formed by layers of sedimentary divisions, yet it is still one mountain]. Could it not be that each varying layer measures a different level of viscosity, the outer being 'oilier'?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator I say this because water as a composition is much more simplified than oil or other substances. More complex compositions would be akin to the samurai sword.. It is made of different metals melted and formed, dipped in water, which causes each metallic layer to dry at differing rates and degrees. This process creates rigidity and strength in the blade. 'Rigid' describes the blade.. but is the blade rigid from two separate 'rigid' metals, or are they only 'rigid' when combined?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator wow educator ima need to go google define what oil is made of and what viscosity means in order to comprehend that one. ur thinking level is deep! do u say that because when oil is on the ground its not the same oil thats in the engine or in the bottle?
lsatt001 1 year ago
@lsatt001 'do u say that because when oil is on the ground its not the same oil thats in the engine or in the bottle?'.. I say this on the grounds of oil being comprised of substances that can be separated.. which is how you get 'diesel'..which differs from 'kerosene'..which differs from 'gas'...yet are all made from the same 'crude oil'. Diesel, in texture, is more 'oily' than Gas.. yet their petroleum origin carries the properties of both. So, if One part is 'oily'.. is not also the whole?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
Is water wet? = not always
The answer depeneds on the criteria you choose: wet, wetter = a quality, not a thing. = a state where the relationship between two substances is the ability of one is to soak into the other.
UNITEnFIGHT!
HorEmAkhtHorus 1 year ago
@HorEmAkhtHorus Shaluwam.. and welcome to the discussion. '..depeneds on the criteria you choose'.. I like the Thought process on the 'quality, not a thing'. In this reference, however, some will argue that a quality Is a thing.. just a 'thing' in the realms of the non-physical. Similar is the state of extreme elation.. happiness/elation/anger/etc. are not 'things'.. yet they exist within the Eye [felt] with much Realism. In saying 'not always'.. would you present the 'is-is not' variations..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Shaluwam, brother. . ."just a 'thing' in the realms of the non-physical" This is exactly where all "Things" exist; it is a state we call"Nu" matter. Now when we conceptulize something, do we move it from Nu matter to Geb matter? Or is all existence inside each and every one of us where "reality" is acted out?
From when you understand the nature of Things, "Is-is not" reverts to a relative opinion.
I'll do catch-up with the nature of Things . . .
HorEmAkhtHorus 1 year ago
@TStheEducator The Nature of things. Things do not have an existence in their own right. They come into being due to our interests. Let me show you . .how many Tets are there in this post so far? = meaningless. Now, let me create: A Tets is when the second or third letter following a "T" is an "E" . . . = 11 Tets, if you count the first one twice. Now Tets exist as a thing that can be quantified, and with qualities that can be debated!
How does this differ from the origin of any other "thing"?
HorEmAkhtHorus 1 year ago
@HorEmAkhtHorus Ra Sia.. Appreciated.. however I do Overstand the Khama'atan Principles.. and also the 7 Hermetic derivatives. You present good insight of them, and are accurate in the concept of 'is-is not..relative opinion'. If you Study the Lessons, I do state that there is no such thing as 'right/wrong', 'good/bad' in Reality... they are merely gradations of the same thing. This is the supreme purpose of Critical Thinking.. to open the Eye to All sides of a 'thing'. Excellent response..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
I would have anwsered, "yes" right away, but after listening to your presentation and reading the comments, now I'm not so sure.....I enjoyed this. Thanks =0)
Izache1313 1 year ago
@Izache1313 Sekhoma'ati.. Your response is much appreciated. As you Know.. My efforts are Always to awaken the Eye from the forced Psychological subjugation of the Ma'afa. However, even when I Am not directly addressing the obvious [Afu-Ra-Ka, slavery, bible, etc.].. I Never stray from the mission to re-awaken the Critical Thinking faculties of that Powerful Eye [Eye of Haru.. The Mind]. Regardless of 'yes vs. no'.. what would be your Thought process in either way.. or both?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator ...I'm embarrassed but I won't lie...my thought process tells me that yes, water is wet...if someone had presented this question to me, without the comments here to refer to, my anwser would have been a quick yes; and then I would have looked at the person like they were crazy or something. ...but that's why I enjoy your lessons because they make me expand my thinking...my intellect is infant at best. =)
Izache1313 1 year ago
@Izache1313 'I enjoy your lessons because they make me expand my thinking'.. Which is the purpose of them in the first place. Said best by Cheikh Anta Diop: 'We need to raise an Army of Scholars'. After I heard this quote, I have diligently tried to not only expand the Thinking of My People..but first and foremost My Own and that of My Daughter's. 'my intellect is infant at best'.. Every Great Scholar started with the 'Infant Intellect'..and with Light..We grow. What is your Reasoning for 'yes'?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator ...ah bro...thank you for the encouraging words. My reasoning for 'yes'? ...um...well, I would have to say just because of how I relate wetness to water I guess...
Izache1313 1 year ago
@Izache1313 'because of how I relate wetness to water I guess'.. So in essence.. your perspective would be the antithesis of what I previously asked Canadarocksish about the 0 Principle and the Principle of 1?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator ...ah! I didn't even think of it that way! ...I suck at math, but reading the explanation in quotations tickled my brain. When you say that 'wet' and 'burn' are "creations" of Water and Fire it made me ponder the original question again...so is water wet or does water make things wet...lol...this is fun...it took my brain a minute to wrap my mind around the principle of 0 and 1.
Izache1313 1 year ago
@Izache1313 Interesting exercise We are engaging in.. very, very beneficial. This is the intent.. to wake up that Analytical Eye. This is also why I mentioned the chemical processes and formulations that are added to Water to make it 'wet-er'.. but, when has it been established that Water was 'wet' in the First place? To Me.. it is even more of a challenge to stabilize a 'constant vs. variable' equation with this Question that it is to do so with the 'Chicken vs. Egg' paradox..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator **than**
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator ...beneficial indeed...and I thank you for allowing me to participate. I learned something today and had fun doing it. Namaste, my dear friend.
Izache1313 1 year ago
@Izache1313 Hutuapo.. When We learn to Properly use Our Minds.. We will find that there is no Real 'right' or 'wrong' answer to anything. The important aspect of Critical Thinking and Analyzing Knowledge is What to do with it. Hoarding Knowledge is more perilous than hoarding diamonds and gold. I look forward to any and all of your comments..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
I do not know if water is wet but, I do know that water makes and object and people wet.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 Shalwumekh.. The comment is much appreciated. What you state is the given effect.. the 'Known Factor', so to speak. It is the 'effect' or 'result' of the object/people coming in contact with water. However, is there any way to reach a conclusion that Water Itself is/is not 'wet'.. and in either case, can either be done through empirical Study?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experimen.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 Overstood.. however, My Question to you is whether or not it can be proven/dis-proven if 'water is wet' through empirical Study..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Water is a liquid but, if you freeze it will turn to ice that is a solid.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 Also Overstood.. Therefore, is your viewpoint asserting that it depends on the State of the Water that will determine its 'wetness'? If so.. We would have to re-examine the basic formulation of Ice [solid], which is Water [liquid]. That being said.. when the Ice melts, it makes Itself 'wet' from its own properties [with the added element of Heat]. Since Ice is made of Water.. and 'wet-ens' when reduced to its Water state.. then is Water in its Liquid State 'wet'? Back full circle..
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Me personally I do not think water is wet. I think it is the things you put in the water that makes it wet.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 Appreciated. 'Me personally I do not think water is wet'.. Would you care to present your Reasoning?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Because when water spill it mess up your papers or put a wet spot on your clothes.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 It is agreed that you are speaking about the 'effect' of the spillage. However, I Am asking all to present views on the Water Itself.. Before the 'result' of the spilling/pouring/etc.
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator I personally do not think water it self is wet.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
@Natasha4552 Your participation and opinion are much appreciated.
TStheEducator 1 year ago
@TStheEducator Thank you I actually enjoyed this lesson it challenge me to think.
Natasha4552 1 year ago
it can partially depend on the definition of 'wet'. I would refer to things that are wet when water is soaked in it or on the object (pretty much anything that isn't dry). It might also depend on the object. for instance, a wet shirt has water in it, but so does juice, we would call the shirt wet but not the juice (but the juice jug would be wet). But water isn't wet because it is water. Fire itself does not burn but wood can have fire and burn. Water causes things to be wet but isn't wet itself
Canadarocksish 1 year ago
@Canadarocksish Excellent analysis and presentation of Thought. So.. in essence.. 'wet' and 'burn' are creations of Water and Fire, respectively? Meaning.. Water and Fire would be the 0 Principle [the Nothingness before Something], whereas 'wet' and 'burn' would be the Principle of 1 [the Something from Nothingness]?
TStheEducator 1 year ago
no.
Canadarocksish 1 year ago
@Canadarocksish Much appreciated. I would be interested in your Reasoning..
TStheEducator 1 year ago