To take my example "myth+revelation=fantasy", what is said about this in
the long posting more seems to
be "When myth (defined as our subjective memory of the past) is compared
to fantasy (defined as our projected idealized future, based on the
myth) to create a hypothetic idealized present, we change (this change
being defined as 'revelation') our interpretation of the actual present
to make it more like the hypothetic present."
All right. Perhaps you by "+" mean "when compared to" and "=" means
"this induces". I can't say I agree to the statement, but at least it's
somewhat defined. I don't think we interpret the present using
projected future ("fantasy"), at least not if we're sane. The present
would diverge hopelessly from our interpretation of it. "This way to the
asylum, if you please".
I might add that these are very non-inituitive definitions for anyone
who has used these symbols for math..
Lets try "reason+rationality=theory". The definition of "theory" seems
to be "symbolic projection", which
I must admit fails to ring a bell. The definition of "reason" seems to
be "the classification of things as positive or negative, based on past
experience", which is possible to understand. The definition of
"rationality" is not apparent. What Brett says seems to be that
rationality is "personal meaning in the present", which I can't for the
life of me comprehend. It doesn't appear to be anything like the common
meaning of "rationality", at least..
This means that .. err.. when we compare our classification of things as
good or evil to our personal meaning in the present, this induces
symbolic projection.. Does that mean that "when we decide if something
is good or bad, we use our prejudices"? What a new-fangled theory..
This is not clear. Not in any way at all. Mostly, it appears like none
of our commonly used abstract nouns have their usual meaning in this
"word algebra". This is extremely confusing, to say the least.
Give us a blessed dictionary of the new "brettlish" language. Or better
yet, start using the normal meanings of words. I refuse to use the word
"reason" to mean "subjective classification of things as good or bad".
As to how god can be "as necessary as technology for formulating logical
or intelligent decisions
within a conscious awareness of the moment", I won't even try that one..
Maybe "god" means "axioms"?
And "technology" means "logic"? I don't know. I don't know if I care.
All I know is that, using the ordinary definitions of words, this is
idiocy. Neither god nor technology are necessary to formulate
intelligent decisions. If I stand under a falling piano, I don't need
technology or God to make the decision to move aside.
-Andreas Engström
(Very tired)
níg-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-ù-tu