RE: virus: Cow

TheHermit (
Thu, 27 May 1999 00:01:24 -0500

I tried to read this. I really did. I gave up. One can only read what is meaningful. I suspect that your symbols have abandoned reality and are fluttering aimlessly into a murky sky devoid of arrangement, all reason fled. I had first assumed that your surrealistic psychadelic writing was a deliberate ploy. Now I begin to fear that you think this makes sense.

There is a reason why we arrange certain words in certain order to build sentences; it is only then that they become meaningful to others. It would seem that chance plays a large role in the arrangement of your words. And everyone here can see the result. Symbolic? Perhaps. Meaningful? No.

A writing hint, "Erratic AND meaningless CAPITALIZAION of WORDS simply MAKES the AUTHOR appear ILLITERATE."

I'd offer you a giraffe but mine all turned purple from lack of spinache.

Take Care

TheHermit < Singing "They're coming to take you away, Ha Ha" >

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of Brett Robertson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: virus: Cow
> Assume chance applies to the arrangement of static objects. As such,
> freedom from stasis allows for change. Then, change which is ordered
> may be symbolized.
> If this is true, we might say that a symbol is the
> representation of an
> "abstraction".
> This is to say: Given only chance and a static arrangement
> of objects,
> the *abstraction* is that which MUST thus be represented by a symbol.
> This is suggested, since potential change is allowed for only through
> the abstraction of the proposed reality (since not suggested by the
> static arrangement alone): This assumption shows, thereby, how the
> object nature of reality may similarly be abstracted through the
> hypothetical negation, theoretical supposition, and *symbolic*
> representation of it.
> Reality may thus be ordered in line with the symbolization of it and
> also be representative of an "emergent" order. As such,
> reality may be
> said to follow a logical development. Restated: The abstraction
> requires a system of objects to define a common ground which
> applies to
> any of the objects so encoded by the system, and this system is
> similarly *symbolically* ordered with regard to the representation of
> these objects as allowed for through the abstraction of them).
> As such, symbolism (as in what is hypothetical and theoretical) always
> refers back to what is objective (if it is to be ordered, or
> logical).
> The *emergent* potential of what is objective, by which it becomes
> ordered-- and so, that which thereby defines how what is
> objective is to
> be symbolized is the "technology" of it.
> *Science*, as symbolic knowledge which exists within a context (such
> that the context provides the meaning for what is hypothesised and
> theorized), may-- according to this understanding-- be
> defined without a
> technology (or may be utilized pending a technology, assuming that it
> might thus define the foundation for itself). However, such a systems
> view must yet be validated by a pre-existing technology
> (emergent order)
> that it might be found logical, else science must find itself
> referring
> to itself only and so being unrepresentative of the object
> nature which
> it purports to describe.
> The technology of science is an emergent order whose unified, or
> OBJECTIVE, nature is founded upon a static arrangement which alone
> provides for the resolution of the logic it suggests. The abstraction
> of reality by which what is objective might be hypothetically negated
> and only theoretically reinstated MAY define the "ethics" of the
> system... though, similarly, the *imperative* of such
> manipulations is a
> non-contradiction based, or "moral", foundation for it.
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO:
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: