Re: virus: 15 desires behind all human behavior

Lena Rotenberg (lrr@netkonnect.net)
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:02:22 -0400


Brett or Whoever,

Would you please mind clarifying what you're saying here, for example by
providing concrete examples? You are able to write very clearly when you
want to. It would be nice if you wanted to regarding this topic, which I
personally find interesting.

Thanks,
lena

At 12:55 PM 6/22/98 PDT, you wrote:
>I think it is not so important what various forms evolve spontaneously
>from various mis applications of those forces to which all things might
>be reduced; but, to ask "What will continue". While I agree that
>certain contingencies develop-- like whirlpools-- which create their own
>systems and produce their own phenomena... I see these systems as being
>self limiting and thus prone to decay. This would leave the memetic
>"formula" for that which must necessarily continue as an indication of
>what will evolve (while all else rises to temporary prominence and then
>dies out).
>
>I question what force demands social interaction. I assert that this
>force is also a contingency rather than a necessity for individual
>survival. As such, I see this "systems perspective" (which would
>idealize the contingency over the necessity) as being the illusion of
>"immortality" (or "something") which is condoned socially to the
>disregard of lawful forces (like logic, cause/ effect, truth, etc.).
>
>Most simply I am saying: Yes, we can buy into a systems view such that
>a "many headed beast" might rise to the surface "on the waters of many
>nations" (a pluralistic "truth" can be socially agreed upon); but, when
>this social agreement is overturned by the lawful consistency which it
>aspires to deny... all energies contributed to the system will likewise
>be negated to nothing such that the laws to which all things more
>properly reduce (the law of an individual existence acting as its form
>suggests it function-- and INDIVIDUAL because we cannot say that a thing
>reduces to a process which does not include *thingness*)... this law--
>of "being"-- must eventually manifest its logic contrary to a social
>agreement that it not.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

--
Lena Rotenberg
lrr@netkonnect.net