Re: virus: Hardly ever....

Brett Lane Robertson (
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:49:46 -0500

>Going over my notes... (sorry, Brett, but that is going into the Viral
>Phrasebook) I seem to have misplaced any reference to any religion which
>_doesn't_ attempt to explain reality, and if backed into corners, I still
>fail to find one which won't say- 'but that is the way it is....(Wade)


Weren't you asking where the "there" was in "there there"?

If "there" is a thing, then to say that a "there" is in a particular
location named "there" would be to say that one can speak of a there/thing
which has a there/location in space-time. Saying that there is no
there/thing in the there/location may also--paradoxically--imply that there
is no there/location by which to assign a dimensional space-time attribute
to there-as-a-thing; that is, saying there is no "there there" illustrates a
paradoxical situation in which we have used a "locator", the nominalization
of "thereness", to illustrate a property which has no being or existence in
the sense of having no spatial AND no temporal "locator" (I am using the
term "locator" to imply that either temporal being or spacial existence
might allow one to "locate" a thing).

So, seeing that we cannot locate "there there" using being and existence in
a substatutive fashion...perhaps we can locate it by either one or the other
(space or time) independently. Which seems to be the case if we assign the
quality of materiality to "existence" and temporality to "being" such that
a "locatior" becomes either a point along a continuum of time... or a space
designated as such within materiality. Interestingly enough, what could
not be determined by both space and time interchangably (the "there
there"), is determined by first one and then the other ("it is there" and
"there it is") that we might now speak of "space-time" and a quality
named "there" (it is that it is) which cannot be determined using mutually
exclusive categories since these categories purport to show a relationship
between two things which are--in such a case--covered by a "law of cooperation".

The proposed "Law of Cooperation" (or I may have called this a law of
"Certainty") is a reversal of the law of non-contradiction, and states :
The Being of a thing (it's spatial-temporal nature) cannot be determined by
its existence in space or its being at a point in time since it can be shown
that being and existence must have both a mutually exclusive AND a mutually
inclusive-- or "cooperative"-- relationship in order that a thing manifest
materiality at any point in time. (Or something of the sort).



I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal