From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:25:36 -0500 (EST) To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: Cow Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> 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.
>
I noticed that, unable to refute my involution-evolution model for the
dialectic interplay between scientific theoretical and technological
advance, you simply didn't reprint it. Poor Brettster. Reet. Delete.
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>