Joseph:
Your post was studied for some time. I would suggest that, from my
perspective, that you are developing a internal language that orders
your feelings in a manner that is satisficing to personal your
needs. But, I find it difficult to translate your expressions into
the usual usages that allow me to understand your expressions. What
is it, really, that you are seeking to signify?
In particular, your style suggests that the notion of sign, signals
and semiosis at the base of natural and human communication is
purposefully excluded from your discourse. The information content
of messages comes to us in these forms. And, we give our sensual
experiences to others in these forms. Is this merely my imagination
or do you intentionally exclude the profound separation that guides
an artist from the sensory impressions to the sensual expressions?
The phrase:
"be directed inversely to the logic of ethics, inversely to any
rational or irrational process, that is, inversely to processes that
lead toward the absolute identity or diversity of non-contradiction."
reads to me as an abuse of the everyday usage of the notion of both
inverse and and identity.
Can you give meaningful definitions of how you are using the terms
"identity" and "inverse" in this context?
(Neither of these terms cohere to logic as it is typically expressed
although both are common in mathematics.)
Perhaps the critical phrase in your thinking is:
"dynamic electrostatic equilibrium".
Is it your intention to communicate that mental dialectics in the
parliament of the mind must engineer the absolute stoppage of time?
In my simple notion of a Greek-ish world, the pleasures of art should
parallel the pleasures of good friends, good food, good wine and a
good lover! ;-)
Cheers
Jerry
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
