From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:53:35 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science) Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> RE: "...Objects do not act they are acted upon.."
>
> Joe,
>
> Any and all objects have a potential to act which is part and parcel of
> their objective characteristics... "balls" (for example) "roll", this
> action is contained as a potential in the characteristic "roundness" (a
> characteristic which is inseparable from the object characterized thus).
>
Balls are either pushed or pulled (acted upon) by a force external to
them; say, someone's hand, or gravity. Shape and surroundings
dictate how an object is moved by such action (due to, mainly, the
mass/force ratio, friction and center of gravity).
> ...
> The "self-glorify" inclusion in the post was my attempt to discern WHY
> some people refuse to see that their action is determined by objective
> characteristics.
>
In other words, if they disagree with the Brettster, they are not only
wrong, they are vainly and willfully ignorant. How vain of you!
>
> Humans, because of self-consciousness, can be said to direct the self by
> way of self-awareness. This ALLOWS that an individual may *will*
> themselves to perform within certain parameters outside of what is
> "ideal" (assuming *ideal* action is that action which is prescribed by
> an objective logic-- thus will represents actions contrary to logic).
>
People are individuals; there is no single absolutely right way for
everyone to behave in a specific situation; such an assertion
denies the existence of individual abilities and histories. A
lifeguard, in the absence of boat, line or life preserver, should jump
in the water to save a drowning person, but a non-swinmmer would
be better advised to seek one who knows how to swim (for both
their sakes).
>
> As such, *self-glorify* (in the post) refers to the illogic of the
> position which you support (your position: intentionality is related to
> human will such that will is contrary or opposed to a prior
> intentionality though is justified by a self which intends).
>
And what would be the prior intentionality, Brett? Are you trying to
smuggle your God Thingie in again as a puritanically condemnatory
normative device? I sincerely hope that one day you are able to
grow beyond the fallacious reliance upon such devices.
>
> 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
>
>