Hi John, > Mary: > > Everything that has ever passed through your head or mine is 'me' > > (or you) thinking ABOUT something. > > > John: > > Well, the thing is, in metaphysics we try and go a bit deeper than > assuming > "I" have a "me" when we're arguing about the primacy of subject/object > thinking and basing the conclusion upon this tightly held assumption. > And > on deeper analysis, it turns out that this "thinking ABOUT" is actually > the > same thing as the "you" doing the thinking. That split is assumed in > your > formulation, but not logically valid. > > And you can stomp your pretty little foot and pout all you want, but > that > doesn't change the fact that this ME so evident to you, is nuthin' but > pure > social hypnosis. > > [Mary Replies] We seem to have a failure to communicate? The thinker is thinking about things of their own construction. Pretty much exactly the problem wouldn't you say? > > [Mary] > > Logic itself is entirely based in the > > subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought about. > [John] > Nah, there are more things under heaven and earth to be discussed, than > we > can even dream. > > "The man of character lives at home without exercising his mind and > performs > actions without worry.... Appearing stupid, he goes about like one who > has > lost his way. He has plenty of money to spend, but does not know where > it > comes from." > > Chuang-tzu > [Mary Replies] I didn't realize they had Republicans in Chaung-tzu's time.
> [John] > But if you wanna argue about it, as you seem to, I'll ask, how can the > cortex observe and control the cortex? [Mary Replies] If you want to go down this path, I can reply that the cortex is the hardware and it "knows not" what software is running upon it. Your "self" that you're so sure > about, is simply a complex of social information relayed back into the > cortex - this is social misinformation when it pretends to be other > than it > is, when it pretends to be fundamental. All it really is is an > unconscious > pretense that the organism contains a higher system than the cortex. > > Hypnosis, in other words. > [Mary Replies] Ummm. Yeah, if you'd get away from the hardware metaphor, we'd be in complete agreement. Hardware defines the limits of processing potential, but not the algorithms. Hypnosis? An excellent metaphor for SOM. > > [John] > Does what not make sense? Sorry. I wasn't listening. > [Mary Replies] Yeah, I have the same problem sometimes. > > [John] I merely point > out > that life is creative and dominant of inorganic matter, society is > creative > and dominant of biological beings, ideas are creative and dominant of > societies. DQ is dominant and creative of ideas. It seems so much > more > obvious than random particles chance upon life, etc. That's what I'd > call > bizarre. > [Mary Replies] Quality might be random, but randomness is not Quality. > > [John] > Best to you too Mary. Nice avatar btw. I like nom de plumeweb a lot > and > hope you can keep him going for a while. I figure he must be yours > cuz he > seems too intelligent to be an actual male. Priceless irony indeed. > [Mary Replies] Cool. Always wanted to assert my masculine side? Best, Mary Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
