From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:23:56 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign") Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> Poisonous berries might be generalized to "fruit" through hypothesis and
> theory such that they are eaten in line with the "fantasy" that they are
> thereby as good for one as "bananas".
>
Only if one mistakenly assumes that all fruit is edible. Not all fruit
is edible, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. So
much for this foolishness.
>
> The "symbolization" of fruit allows for this mistake (as the symbol is a
> representation of the abstraction "a fruit-like object" from within a
> group of such objects-- such that the abstraction includes ALL similar
> objects and the representation might relate to ANY such object).
>
If it looks like a duck to the myopic, it might be a platypus. So?
>
> The word "fruit", as a symbol, loses its "banana" denotation. This is
> to say, "fruit" loses the objective necessity that it behave like a
> banana rather than like a poisonous berry if it is understood in this
> way (if understood according to the assumption that the true nature of a
> thing might be specified from what is first a generalization of objects
> in a group to what is thereby a symbolic-only, or subjective, entity).
>
If you specify that you define all fruit as edible, poisonous berries
are excluded; if you do not include such a specification, poisonous
berries are excluded. M-W uses the phrase "usually edible."
>
> Similarly, the action of an individual which develops from "neural
> complexes" suggests the eating of a banana rather than the theoretical
> eating of a poisonous berry; while (on the other hand), the
> generalization "individual", if approached from the perspective of what
> is first a group of similar "human" objects and only subsequently
> specified to be true, suggests an equal probability of eating poison
> berries and bananas (pending objective proof that bananas are general
> cases and poison berries the specific exception. Such "proof" would be
> obtained ONLY through the death of the individual understanding reality
> such. Some proof!).
>
How do you think people found out what berries were poison,
nimrod? After someone ate them, keeled over and died, the others
around the poor schmuck said "Well, let's not eat those, and let's
advise our friends and children not to, either." It's precisely the
intersubjective transmission of such information that renders it
available to individuals independent of personal experience. This
method, when casually applied, can result in error; until
Amerindians disabused them of the notion, New World settlers
would not eat tomatoes, believing them to be poisonous because
they resembled poisonous European plants. Have an apple, dearie!
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>