virus: Existence

Reed Konsler (
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:16 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:28:37 -0500
>From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
>Subject: Re: virus: Existence
>You are explaining to me the process for destroying oneself (in your post

Actually, no. I think you are approaching this whole thing from too
aggressive a position. I was trying to give you as detailed a response as
possible, though I wasn't able to piece much of the meaning together from
your post. I was hoping to provide you with some more context to elaborate
off of so that I could better understand you. I'm sorry you percieved it
as an attack. That wasn't what I intended. I'm guessed that if I simply
said "I don't get this" you would become frustrated and stop I
did my best. Given, though, that I didn't really understand what you were
saying I have no doubt that my questions must have seemed odd. I hope,
though, that you take them in the best possible light.

" Usually, [I] don't get past defining [my] terms."

Actually, I wasn't talking about you, at all. I usually say "one" in this
context in order to avoid that confusion...but people find it stuffy. My
intent was:

Usually, one doesn't get past defining terms.

Which is simply a reflection on the way discussion tends to go on this
list. Someone proposes a theory or other. If there is any response at all
it is usually in the form of questions which rapidly become discussions of
how to define words like "consciousness", "ego", "truth", "objective", etc.
If you're following David R's posts that are concurrent with this one you
will note that his dicussion of objectivism is narrowing in on the axioms,
or central definitions, of that ideology.
Every ideology has such axioms. So, in making the observation that this
discussion would also probably revolve around the definition of central
terms, I wasn't denigrating you as a thinker any more than Ayn Rand,
Aristotle, or Kant, etc...

"based on my understanding, you are not capable of reading for content and
putting forth an alternate thesis for the explanation proposed."

[smile] Maybe. You know, as you say that, I really suspect you are
correct. But I'm afraid I've
lost track of the topic now. I really wasn't trying to argue with you,
though, so if I didn't seem to propose an alternative thesis it was becuase
I wanted to understand your's better. You were using a lot of words "ego",
"self", etc. which interest me in a way I couldn't understand. In saying
that, I'm not attacking your viewpoint or even saying you were doing a bad
job explaining it. I just didn't get it, is all. I'd like to, though.
[sigh] :-)

"Or, that your personal philosophy, "fun" is opposed to my philosophy,
and therefore, you will continue to assume that my posts do not meet your
criteria and will continue to miss my point while you are looking for
something pointless."

[smile] That's probably true, too. Oh, I don't know. I can only say that
I was sincerely trying to elicit more from you in the hopes of
understanding your point of view--not to deconstruct, dismiss, or denigrate
it--but to, I don't know, have a conversation? I'm a strange person,
though. This wouldn't be the first time I've completely miscommunicated my

"(am sending a post called "2+2; Or why One Can't both Replicate and
Reproduce" which details your's and my stance and suggests a prime reason
why we--the many and I--fail to communicate)"

I'll read it.

Anyway, I'm sorry for not communicating more smileys ( :-) ). I'm really
sincere about that, I was being a little playful...but I think you missed
the goodwill I was thinking. Anyway, if you think I'm particularly
annoying we don't have to continue, but if you're interested I'd still
enjoy a more detailed explaination of:

>>The question of identity falls into the idea of ego and I've found myself to
>>have a passive ego, or Self, which asserts its "mind" in response to



Reed Konsler