virus: Social Metaphysics

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:52:54 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:12:07 -0600
>From: David McFadzean <>
>At 04:54 PM 9/23/97 -0700, Richard Brodie wrote:
>>The point, my friend, is that EVERYTHING is a metaphor. I am sure you will
>>agree with this. Yet when you start digging in you heels and talking about
>>"reasonable" as if it meant something other than whatever interpretation we
>>happen to give it today, I think you may lose sight of this basic truth.
>I'm no longer sure of what you mean by 'everything'. If metaphors have only
>been around as long as memes, would you say that nothing existed before humans?

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to around to hear it, does
it make
a sound? That isn't intended to be obtuse, the koan is a precise isomorph
of the

"would you say that nothing existed before humans?"

What do you mean by "exist"? How do you determine the existence of something?
Our observations of the universe imply that it had a history prior to the
of homo-sapiens. What was the skin color of a T-Rex? Purple?

>From my perspective:

You are making the assumption that there is some underlying substrate of
called "reality". It is, however, impossible to independently verify the
existence of
this supposed material outside of perception. "Reality" is derived from
not the reverse. If you like, the two are inextricably intertwined. While
I am willing
to call such a viewpoint "subjective" I'm not certian why you insist on
"subjective" and "inconsistent". In fact, I'm not sure what you find so
about "subjective".

What is wrong with subjectivity, anyway?


Reed Konsler