Re: virus: The other

Brett Lane Robertson (
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 01:52:20 -0500

>I try, as you have noticed, not to use absolutes. We all know that
>absolutes are a faulty way of thinking. Marie, instead of saying "the
>same" use the word "similar" and I'll bet most argument will fade.
>Brett, in his own wierd way, I think said the same thing below. (Sodom)


Theories from physics (which I think Sodom is more familiar with than
meta-physics) might apply to "spirit", "soul", "consciousness"...all we have
to do is assume that these states are in some way material. What about
"relativity" of consciousness (a place where e=mc^2 translates to "thought =
being times consciousness squared") or an uncertainty theory of
consciousness where "the subject and the thought cannot be determined at the
same time"? Statements like "We all know that absolutes are a faulty way of
thinking" make less sense to physicists when talking about laws like the
second law of thermodynamics ("We can't use absolutes?") than when talking
about the laws of individuals and groups. If we said that "e" *is similar*
to mc^2--sometimes, depending on free choice, if god says so...(get my
point?)--does that make the idea of relativity go away? Could we say that
people are relative? Would this mean that they are all different? And
where did the parinoia about "automotons" come from? I don't think Marie
even mentioned lack of free choice (the one everyone seems to get frightened
if you suggest). Philosophically, I would say we are all the same (not
sometimes, not similar...). Anyone going to say that now (because I say so)
we no longer have free-will? Be more creative!



A big man has no time really to do anything but just sit and
be big.

Francis Scott Fitzgerald