On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:53:10 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
> > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things 
>> intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined 
>> externally.
> I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it 
> for no reason. 

I did it for many reasons, some of them my own. Your argument is that grey 
must be either black or white. It's not true. Grey is neither black, white, 
nor is it nor black nor white. Why is this so difficult?

> I think  Lewis Carroll best summed up your ideas on this subject: 
> T was brillig, and the slithy toves
>   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
>     All mimsy were the borogoves,
>       And the mome raths outgrabe.

It's interesting that you bring up Lewis Carroll (as you have before) as an 
insult, when actually the Alice books are brilliant explorations on 
consciousness and sense-making. Carroll was a mathematician and logician 
(see Dodgson), who published academic works under that name. I have been 
reading Deleuze's *The Logic of Sense* (pdf download: 
http://en.bookfi.org/book/1172079?_ir=1) in which he writes about Carroll's 
use of paradox and esoteric words to point out the multiple layers of sense 
inherent in language. You are reading Carroll on the most simplistic level, 
a childlike level where anything unfamiliar can only be giggled at.

It turns out that Deleuze's understanding of sense using Carroll's examples 
are identical to my own in many ways, especially the big picture 
dialectics. Many philosophical concepts, from mysticism to semiotics have 
repeatedly revealed the same kinds of primordial trichotomies. My ideas 
take a step further in that they anchor direct awareness as a temporal 
algebra in contradistinction to the spatial geometries of indirect 

> > Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would 
>> there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them 
> Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason 
> either exists or it does not.

What do your assumptions about my motives have to do with anything? What is 
useful about saying that something 'either exists or it does not'? 
Everything exists in some sense. Nothing exists in every sense.


> If other people pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they 
> do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay attention to my views 
> they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason.

According to your views, you don't have any views, and neither do any 
possible readers of your views. All of it is either robotic or random. I am 
saying that if you are right, then there is no point whatsoever for you to 
ever speak again. You are trying to wriggle out of it by subjecting 
anything I say to the same black and white reductionism that you have used 
to invalidate your own ability to participate in your own thought.


>   John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to