virus: Fwd: PS: Re: Faith and Certainty

B. Lane Robertson (metaphy@hotmail.com)
Sat, 13 Jun 1998 10:03:09 PDT

>From psychoanalytic-studies-request@sheffield.ac.uk
Fri Jun 12 23:07:48 1998
>Received: from pp2 [143.167.1.32]
> by pp3.shef.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
> id 0ykjRf-0003qj-00; Sat, 13 Jun 1998
07:05:43 +0100
>Message-Id:
<19980613054236.29892.qmail@hotmail.com>
>Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:05:43 BST
>Reply-To: psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk
>Originator: psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk
>Sender:
psychoanalytic-studies-request@sheffield.ac.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>From: "B. Lane Robertson" <metaphy@hotmail.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list
<psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk>
>Subject: PS: Re: Faith and Certainty
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by
Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Psychoanalytic Studies E-mail Discussion
Forum
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>My translation:
>
>1. All things occur on the border of chaos and
>order.
>
>2. Phenomenology is the giving up the continuance
>of "self" to name "object" (as that which is, by
>definition, non-continuous-- non fluid).
>
>3. "Doubt" can help define the point at which
>objects phenomenolize.
>
>
>One: Chaos suggests total relativity within which
>there is no way to differentiate things. Order
>suggests no freedom to see the relative difference
>between things. Reality might then be the
>*difference* between chaos and order.
>
>Two: If the logic of a "self" is ordered, then
this
>logical continuance might be given up to see the
>"relativity" of objects-- as being that which is
>different from the self.
>
>Three: "Doubt" is the giving up of self to see the
>objective nature of reality. This might occur as
>the objectification of a person "meets" the
>fluidification of an object (maybe represented in
>the "logic" objects obey).
>
>How does an object become "fluid"? I wrote that
>objects can't become in-distinct, not really
(though
>we think that a self can become objectified using
>doubt?!?). So, "doubt" of self is just as logical
>as objects becoming fluid (which is not logical).
> Therefore, the doubt of self is only a symbolic
>thing (like saying that a tree and an "un" tree
>might negate the objective nature of trees and form
a
>continuum of tree-- from doubtful to certain).
>
>Doubt is like a hypothetical opposite *person*
which
>forms a continuum between self (or object, as in
the
>tree example) and not-self (or negative tree:). If
>this continuum is represented as a continuum
between
>the numbers -1 and 1, then the point called zero
>would be where reality manifests (if zero can also
>be said to be where chaos ends and order starts).
>
>"One" is a person (or tree); "negative one" is a
>not-self phenomenon (doubt, or "untree"). Zero is
>both complex and chaotic and only those things that
>are both ordered and free can "become" something
>(like zero divided by zero becomes
>"one"). The negative proof of this is that
>"certainty" is represented by "positive doubt" (or
>the number "one" as *not* negated to zero)-- to
>"reverse" the formula to a more logical form.
>
>Most simply: IF truth can be negated to doubt,
then
>doubt can be "positived" to truth... the balance of
>the negative and the positive is the zero "point"
>which balances these two possibilities.
>
>Not much better than before, sorry. Maybe I will
>try again soon.
>
>>From
psychoanalytic-studies-request@sheffield.ac.uk Tue
Jun 9 10:24:07
>1998
>>Received: from pp2 [143.167.1.32]
>> by pp3.shef.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
>> id 0yjS55-0002rq-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:21:07
+0100
>>Message-Id:
<19980609161153.2645.qmail@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:21:07 BST
>>Reply-To: psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk
>>Originator: psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk
>>Sender:
psychoanalytic-studies-request@sheffield.ac.uk
>>Precedence: bulk
>>From: "B. Lane Robertson" <metaphy@hotmail.com>
>>To: Multiple recipients of list
><psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk>
>>Subject: PS: Faith and Certainty
>>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by
Anastasios Kotsikonas
>>X-Comment: Psychoanalytic Studies E-mail
Discussion Forum
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>>The metaphysic of "doubt" that I have proposed
>>suggests a foundational "matrix"-- or universal
>>pattern of translation-- by which symbols take on
>>the characteristics of objects and within which
they
>>might thereby be said to function according to the
>>"laws" of objects (that is, according to the
>>properties of place [existence], extension
[being],
>>space, time, and "rule"*).
>>
>>The matrix thus defined might be simplified to the
>>area between an objectification ("1") and its
>>negation ("-1"). The exact negation of the object
>>thus established according to this matrix might be
>>said to be an *absolute* null (or "zero") which
>>theoretically can be complexified by any relative
>>pairing in the infinite series formed between 1
and
>>-1 that nonetheless exactly negate each other to a
>>point. This absolute null is thus represented by
>>infinite complexity but is re-named by all
>>derrivations of itself (and this is the "validity"
>>suggested by the reflexivity of a thing).
>>
>>According to Zeno's paradox, though, all distances
>>represented within the matrix are infinitely
>>divisible by 1/2 such that the central "point" is
>>infinitely regressive. THIS representation of
zero
>>(as non-absolute) creates the relativistic
"spatial"
>>properties of objects within which a verification
of
>>the lawfulness of the absolute series might
manifest
>>in an ordered ("temporal") fashion according to
>>logical rules.
>>
>>The "rules" are the balance of the relative
>>properties of objects and the absolute properties
>>(which would otherwise be relative, but which are
>>herein shown to become logically established in
the
>>lawful progression represented by the infinite and
>>*ordered* series of absolute zero divided by
>>relative zero-- as this formula can be shown to
>>equal absolute one... two, three, four, etc.).**
>>
>>*rule-- A thing might be said to have existence
and
>>being (or place and extension) in such a way that
it
>>"phenomenalizes" (establishes reflexivity) and
>>thereby proposes a negation of itself which
creates
>>a systematically patterned "matrix" such that the
>>chaos implied and the complexity defined
>>re-establish the fixed nature of the thing through
a
>>"reification" (or "logic") which verifies the
>>validity so far suggested (by the reflexive
>>phenomenology) and forms a "redundancy" within
which
>>"objects" (thus defined) follow an infinite and
>>ordered series according to a *symbolic* stream of
>>information which is thereby translatable through
>>the matrix to an absolute certainty.
>>
>>**also note that the relative qualities of the
>>relative series "cancel out" the complexity
implied
>>by lawfulness and so also act in THIS way to
>>establish lawfulness in the negative-- as that
which
>>is revealed through chaos to have a complex
>>existence (and this allows the "independent"
>>*varification* of an object... temporally, and
>>within space).
>>
>>
>>B. Lane Robertson
>>Indiana, USA
>>http://www.window.to/mindrec
>>Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
>>See who's chatting about this topic:
>>http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________
____
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>B. Lane Robertson
>Indiana, USA
>http://www.window.to/mindrec
>Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
>See who's chatting about this topic:
>http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec

B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
See who's chatting about this topic:
http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com