--WebTV-Mail-807103957-19959 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
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
--WebTV-Mail-807103957-19959 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.96) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id XAA10353; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA04809 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:29:09 -0600Message-Id: <199906010613.CAA09780@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: virus@lucifer.com
From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:14:37 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign") Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> Thanks, Joe... I found this interesting. I wonder, though:
>
> You say that "in the absence of a world" logic would be a "tautology"
> (there would be nothing on a person's mind)...
>
Not only that, but since world-concept and self-concept evolve
isomorphically from their interface in perception/action, there could
not be a mind for that nothing to be on. Potential mind develops
into actuality through confrontation with experience, and our
conceptions are perceptions which have passed into memory, lost
their spatiotemporal specificity, and had their invariants purified and
crystallized into symbols (language).
>
> How would logic have been derived "in the absence of a world"?
>
It wouldn't have, neither would a self have been able to emerge in
order to derive it.
>
> Thus, what is logic when applied to itself EXCEPT a reference to the
> world which it represents (rather than a meaningless "tautology")?
>
As Kant said; concepts without percepts are empty; percepts
without concepts are blind. What he failed to see (he
philosophized prior to the appearance of Charles Darwin
(phylogony) or Jean Piaget(ontology) upon the scene) was that
concepts emerge from the generalizations and individuations of the
commonalities and differences between and among percepts, and
recurse to inform them (give them the eyes of knowledge born of
personal history).
>
> As such, is the world not about "logic" (nor logic about the world)?
>
The world and the self are for each individual self-awareness co-
primordial (because we tautologically cannot be aware of
(remember) the period in our development before we emerged into
awareness), yet the architectonic of the self is being built by
confrontation with experience and the extraction of the invariant
laws and logic of such interactions from birth, long before it
matures into recursive self-awareness, and indeed, such a dipolar
and isomorphic world-constitutive and self-constitutive process
makes the subsequent emergence of self-and world-consciousness
possible by laying the hierarchical pre- and subconscious
groundwork for it.
>
> Finally, what is this "mind" which you see as separate from the "world"
> such that "logic" might be MERELY A=A (without the A's applying to
> something which exists)?
>
We are neither seamlessly blended with the world, nor are we
nonrelationally bifurcated from it, but rather we are in a dynamic
and recursive interrelationship with it (not one, not many, but
system). The zen master says "Neti, Neti (not this, not that)"; we
are at once not and not-not the world, and neither absolutely, for
we are the forever incomplete self- and world-reference which can
be placed either both inside or outside the world-system from
which we emerge, or neither inside nor outside it, and the paradox
is unresolveable within the system. As Kurt Godel said, it's an
undecideable proposition. As Maurice Merleau-Ponty and his lady
friend (not lover - Sartre enjoyed that privilege) Simone DeBeauvoir
said, our position vis-a vis the world is fated to be ambiguous. As
Martin Heidegger said, being-in-the-world is a fundamental
interrelation of human consciousness. And as both Albert Camus
and Jean-Paul Sartre maintained, our existence is absurd (dynamic
and unstable; not admitting of a fixed essense).
>
> ps. some of your jokes go beyond what is, in my mind, acceptable
> behavior for mature (intelligent?) adults
>
Most of your assertions and contentions are convoluted beyond
occamian acceptability, and when unwound and stripped of their
obfuscatory language are discoverable to be plainly wrong. This
really pisses me off, but not as much as your dismissive manner
(you demonstrate no intellectual basis upon which you could justify
granting it to yourself), and the contemptuous and deific tone of
imperial sway your error-ridden rhetoric affects. I understand that
you have a need, considering your mental problems, to cling to
order wherever you can find it, but it is unconscionable to illicitly
conjure a faux order out of flawed cloth and then proclaim it as
some sort of quasi-divine revelation of absolute truth to all and
sundry.
>
> 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
>
>
--WebTV-Mail-807103957-19959--