Re: Manifest Science (was: RE: virus: Cow)

Brett Robertson (
Sat, 29 May 1999 03:24:10 -0500 (EST)

Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

I do think that language is a tool. I do think there are objective truths. I do not think that subjectivity can be defined without reference to what is objective. I do think that language helps people communicate BECAUSE it refers to objects (and most likely in a direct way-- that is, the characteristics of objects control for and set the standards to which language, if it would speak about what is of a material nature, must conform... in as close to a 1:1 relationship as possible). I can imagine a perspective which might be called "intersubjective" (though again it must conform to the logical action of objects and so ultimately be based on what is objectively true-- no matter if confused individuals wilfully subject this truth to conform to their vanity). I do not think that the infinite regress of subjective, to intersubjective, to subjugated truth (lies) reflects the construction of language.

Freedom is a technology, justice is a spiritual quality, happiness, etc. are emotions; though emotions may become systematized to produce mechanizations for reinforcing them, mechanizations are similar to technologies excepting that mechanizations are contingencies and technologies necessities... though both mechanizations and technologies aspire toward spiritual ideals.

If you think that humans were formed by other than material means (and/ or that consciousness is created non-objectively, or might refer to what is other than objective), then PLEASE tell me what this other substance is.

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!:

Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from ( by; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:51:17
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id VAA13857; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	WAA20594 for virus-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:35:49 -0600
Message-Id: <> From: "Joe E. Dees" <> To:
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:37:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Manifest Science (was: RE: virus: Cow) In-reply-to: <> References: "Joe E. Dees" <>'s message of Fri, 28 May 1999 15:27:26 -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender:
Precedence: bulk
From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Fri, 28 May 1999 18:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	Re: Manifest Science (was: RE: virus: Cow)
Send reply to:

> *Technology* is the use of "tools" to affect change. "Language" may be
> a *tool* for change. However, the worldview which creates the concepts
> by which the tools are developed is such that the tools themselves
> (cogs, wheels, wrenches) are merely the objective manifestations of the
> technology; thus, technology comes to imply a "way of doing" (or being)
> and ultimately "the way it is".
Language is used to communicate between the subjectiivities of two or more people, and as such facilitates intersubjective agreement concerning common or shared states of affairs; tools are used by one or more people on material (this can also include our bodies, as with weapons or surgical tools), to alter existing states of affairs. Language is tilted towards correlating perception and arranging cooperative action, and wide knowledge distribution, and technology toward expanding the horizons of both perception and action in the micro, macro and cosmic frames, and mass production.
> I disagree that freedom is "not" a technology. Freedom IS a driving
> force and specialization is one of its "products". Specialization
> itself seems a special case of technology (being a tool by which the
> technology of freedom manifests objective examples that accomplishes its
> "purpose"*).
It's still a concept which stands for a capacity. Next you'll be mauntasining that justice, love, sorrow, beauty and hatred are technologies.
> Thus, it appears that your idea of a (subjective?) "concept" and my idea
> of an (objective) *concept* are different (mine implying a natural
> arrangement of objects which define a force for change and yours,
> perhaps, being defined by agreement and compromise regarding this
> arrangement).
Ther is no such thing as "objective", strictly speaking; what we know is known by us through the portals of our perceptions, and is subject to their limits, which may be augmented by technology, but never supplanted by it.
> **purpose* implying merely that objects which describe a "concept"
> according to their natural organization are organized thus by these
> characteristics in a way that they also describe a force by which these
> characteristics are expressed in line with specifiable effects
You will never succeed in your sociopathic goal of consigning self- aware human beings to the status of objects, no matter how obfuscatorally you cloak your intent.
> 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!: