On the other hand, blanket statements such as "one
shouldn't state anything with any degree of
certainty" (paraphrased) are of very limited use for
revising a hypothesis; though alternate hypotheses
might be of some use. Failing to make constructive
(and specific) critiques or to propose an alternate
hypothesis, such blanket statements are perhaps only
"position" statements like "ditto", "I agree", or "I
disagree" (such statements are effectively banned
from some lists either through the suggestion of the
list manager or by general consent of the list
members that they are non-constructive).
In general, I disagree with the sentiment that there
are aspects of reality which cannot be stated in
words. The mystified account of life which suggests
that one might fuck oneself into understanding (use
the body to intuit a second parties "logic" such
that the two parties subsequently have an agreement)
resolves to the fact that: Just as there are no two
people who can come to a sensualistic understanding
which surpasses the "understanding" which might be
termed "lust"... there are no two competing logics
which should be negated such that they disaffirm the
logic inherent in the symbolic formulas used to
convey them (words and numbers) and thereby create a
cognitive dissonance (confusion and emotional
"logic"). Similarly, any objective "understanding"
which is said to surpass words is of such a vague
and/or conflicting nature that no intelligent use
can be made of it (like saying of "2+2=": "Doh, it
*feels* like a number thing and I "intuit" that it
adds to something "right"-- or "beautiful", or
"loving", etc.).
There is no immediately apparent problem with the
word formulas I have presented below! If one
understands the logic inherent in words... one can
easily "add" them up for oneself and see the results
of the word equation. Just as it is not "incorrect"
to state with a certainty that 2+2=4, it is not
"incorrect" to state that myth + revelation=
fantasy; as reason + rationality= theory: or
religion + science = technology and/ or god-- such
that god is as "necessary" as technology for
formulating logical or intelligent decisions within
a conscious awareness of the moment.
Again, these formulas are being made available for
independent verification, argument, or to inspire
alternate theories. Constructive comments welcome
(well actually, ALL comments are welcome... but some
comments might inspire less positive comments than
others)!
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
>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Thu Jun 25 10:51:00 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11420
> for virus-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:47:40 -0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
>Message-ID: <19980625174706.26981.qmail@hotmail.com>
>X-Originating-IP: [192.139.208.1]
>From: "brandon fenton" <b_randum@hotmail.com>
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Subject: Re: virus: Why?
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:47:05 PDT
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>Lane Robertson,
>your conclusions and 'definite' answers are what limits you.Stateing
>that something 'is' a certain way or 'must be' or 'has to be'
>automatically limits your perception to these fragmented vesions of
what
>really is .--constantly re-analyse, evolve, adapt--
>
>>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Tue Jun 23 15:27:10 1998
>>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA18577
>> for virus-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:17:28 -0600
>>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
>owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
>>Message-ID: <19980623221656.9063.qmail@hotmail.com>
>>X-Originating-IP: [207.79.35.43]
>>From: "B. Lane Robertson" <metaphy@hotmail.com>
>>To: virus@lucifer.com, psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk,
>> LisThink@Esosoft.com, cargan@delrio.com, brettman35@webtv.net
>>Subject: virus: Why?
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:16:55 PDT
>>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>>Precedence: bulk
>>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>>
>>Religion is a product which includes "myth" and
>>"fantasy"...but myth and fantasy are necessary
>>components for de-mythologizing and dis-entrancing
>>one's logic ("dis-entrance" applies to the term
>>"fantasy" like de-mythologize applies to myth).
>>
>>What I am saying is this: We write our own
>>*personal* myths to illustrate in a symbolic way how
>>things work out ideally (like using numbers to
>>represent statistical occurrences-- the "numbers" in
>>this case being the "myth" of the behavior...
>>representing the ideal nature of the behaviors in
>>contrast to their actual working out). Fantasy is a
>>similar process by which the myth of our lives might
>>be compared to an ideal projection of those lives
>>into a "perfect" (hypothetical) future.
>>
>>Thus we have a mythologized life, an actual life,
>>and a fantasized life (a past, present, and future).
>> The actual life can either be remembered or
>>compared to the myth ("dreamed"). It can be
>>projected into the future or compared to the fantasy
>>("prophesied"). The myth can, similarly, be
>>compared to the fantasy to create a "hypothetical"
>>present which can be compared it it's "symbolic"
>>perfection to the present situation in order that
>>the present might be modified to become more in line
>>with the ideal ("revelation"). As such, "myth" and
>>"fantasy are
>>NECESSARY components for intelligent behavior.
>>
>>Myth (being the present projected into the past...
>>and being thus resolved "perfectly" in the present
>>with complete certainty-- *circularly*) must involve
>>the splitting of a presently "omniscient" god-form
>>into the protagonistic and antagonistic version
>>which had not-- at the remembered, or mythologized,
>>time-- YET resolved to that perfect state... so myth
>>is *by necessity* a polytheistic, or dual state of
>>good and evil/ right and wrong. As such, myth is
>>not religion (but forms society-- or more properly,
>>*government*-- as a splitting of self into a
>>bureaucracy, or system of self and "other").
>>
>>"Fantasy" on the other hand, BY NECESSITY, must
>>resolve the personal myth into a singularity (as the
>>present omniscient god-form of self is a singularity
>>in comparison to the mythologized self/ other
>>dichotomy-- so to must the future "self" also be a
>>singular resolution of this conceptualization... but
>>in this case an IDEAL resolution of the myth which
>>is similar to the existential self but which does
>>not ALWAYS include this self*). Thus, the self
>>transcends
>>the moment through the past and with regards to a
>>symbolic future-- in which the self is a logical
>>god-form which must exist in order that the non-
>>self
>>might overcome the "error" of the moment (like the
>>projection of statistics "overcomes" the error of
>>behavior which doesn't conform to the "myth", or
>>formulary construction, of the mathematical
>>equation... and this is "magic").
>>
>>Religion is thus the ability to propose "theory"
>>("symbolic" projection) using "reason" (the
>>"conceptualized" past as positive and negative); and
>>is a form of "logic" (or "faith") which finds just
>>"cause" ("myth") and reasoned "effect" ("fantasy")
>>about which "rationality" is formed (personal
>>"meaning" in the present) and by which a
>>"technology" is proposed ("god" as an ideal
>>formulation of "self" validity, or "scientific"
>>verification).
>>
>>*to the extent that the self in the present is in
>>error as determined by the government or religion
>>(by myth and fantasy)-- or as determined by the
>>present, through rationality or self- revelation--
>>the future projection might not include the present
>>self. While a projected future which does not
>>include the self (who is thus not "immortal", being
>>"sinful"-- or which is discontinuous, being in
>>error)... to the extent that one might negate
>>oneself in the present for the sake of rationality,
>>reasonableness, or the continuance of logic; to THIS
>>extent, the ability to be self-aware in the present
>>(to be "conscious" OF) might require self-negation.
>> Self-negation is shamanism (or objectification),
>>rather than government or religion, and might thus
>>require entrancement or mystification (loss of
>>consciousness with regards to reality-- that is
>>"depersonalization") rather than logic (mysticism
>>rather than magic).
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com