Re: virus: Why?
brandon fenton (b_randum@hotmail.com)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:09:21 PDT
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>Of course anyone reading what I write can choose to
>see it as merely ONE hypothesis among many. This in
>no way pre-supposes that *I* should not write it
>with the utmost certainty that what I am stating is
>as definite as the pieces of it might add to. The
>"Why" post IS, for all that, a hypothesis. AND
>being submitted to the list, it is open for specific
>suggestions and arguments that it might be further
>modified according to whatever logic is subsequently
>revealed.
>
>On the other hand, blanket statements such as "one
>shouldn't state anything with any degree of
>certainty" (paraphrased) are of very limited use for
>revising a hypothesis; though alternate hypotheses
>might be of some use. Failing to make constructive
>(and specific) critiques or to propose an alternate
>hypothesis, such blanket statements are perhaps only
>"position" statements like "ditto", "I agree", or "I
>disagree" (such statements are effectively banned
>from some lists either through the suggestion of the
>list manager or by general consent of the list
>members that they are non-constructive).
>
>In general, I disagree with the sentiment that there
>are aspects of reality which cannot be stated in
>words. The mystified account of life which suggests
>that one might fuck oneself into understanding (use
>the body to intuit a second parties "logic" such
>that the two parties subsequently have an agreement)
>resolves to the fact that: Just as there are no two
>people who can come to a sensualistic understanding
>which surpasses the "understanding" which might be
>termed "lust"... there are no two competing logics
>which should be negated such that they disaffirm the
>logic inherent in the symbolic formulas used to
>convey them (words and numbers) and thereby create a
>cognitive dissonance (confusion and emotional
>"logic"). Similarly, any objective "understanding"
>which is said to surpass words is of such a vague
>and/or conflicting nature that no intelligent use
>can be made of it (like saying of "2+2=": "Doh, it
>*feels* like a number thing and I "intuit" that it
>adds to something "right"-- or "beautiful", or
>"loving", etc.).
>
>There is no immediately apparent problem with the
>word formulas I have presented below! If one
>understands the logic inherent in words... one can
>easily "add" them up for oneself and see the results
>of the word equation. Just as it is not "incorrect"
>to state with a certainty that 2+2=4, it is not
>"incorrect" to state that myth + revelation=
>fantasy; as reason + rationality= theory: or
>religion + science = technology and/ or god-- such
>that god is as "necessary" as technology for
>formulating logical or intelligent decisions within
>a conscious awareness of the moment.
>
>Again, these formulas are being made available for
>independent verification, argument, or to inspire
>alternate theories. Constructive comments welcome
>(well actually, ALL comments are welcome... but some
>comments might inspire less positive comments than
>others)!
>
>
>
>B. Lane Robertson
>Indiana, USA
>http://www.window.to/mindrec
>Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
>See who's chatting about this topic:
>http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec
>
>
>>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Thu Jun 25 10:51:00 1998
>>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11420
>> for virus-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:47:40 -0600
>>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
>owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
>>Message-ID: <19980625174706.26981.qmail@hotmail.com>
>>X-Originating-IP: [192.139.208.1]
>>From: "brandon fenton" <b_randum@hotmail.com>
>>To: virus@lucifer.com
>>Subject: Re: virus: Why?
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:47:05 PDT
>>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>>Precedence: bulk
>>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>>
>>Lane Robertson,
>>your conclusions and 'definite' answers are what limits you.Stateing
>>that something 'is' a certain way or 'must be' or 'has to be'
>>automatically limits your perception to these fragmented vesions of
>what realy is.
Lane,
I have no desire to criticize your writting in a constructive way.My
sort, vague response was simply to try to see if you were willing to
re-analyse your position .However, you took a defensive stance, for
which I was pleased to see. In my opinion convictions lead to personal
strenght of character. However,I feel that they might also leed one to
be overly opinionated. Let me ask you this, when you feel you attain a
conclusion such as, " Fantasy + something = something" Do you continue
to try and discover any more depth to your concept without asking
others, or do you consider it a closed case until someone can shed light
on an aspect you didn't think of?
By the way, I know my spelling and sentence structure is un
conventional and sloppy to most however, I consider words and letters to
have no where near the ability to depict the precise mental imagery that
that I generate. Also, I'm an artist and part of my character is
randomly flowing freethought. I choose not to confine all of my writting
to clear cut definitions. I'd rather be vague sometimes. If a statement
is vague, there's an oportunity to read into it and draw personal
meaning from it. I oppose a collective meaning to life.Straight logic,
altough extremely valuabe to me, dosen' offer me the ability to fully
expand my mind, it's basically just there to absorbe, or relate to, and
doesn't generate within me the lust to attain further depth of concious
examination of the statement.Supposedly, you can't judge a book by it's
cover.So when I make these blanket statements maybe you should try to
look under the covers.
p.s. I don't know if I'll want to replie to a long response so if you
want to rip on me keep it short and you might get a response
Later, Brandon Fenton
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com