Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign")

Brett Robertson (
Mon, 31 May 1999 16:23:56 -0500 (EST)

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

Poisonous berries might be generalized to "fruit" through hypothesis and theory such that they are eaten in line with the "fantasy" that they are thereby as good for one as "bananas".

The "symbolization" of fruit allows for this mistake (as the symbol is a representation of the abstraction "a fruit-like object" from within a group of such objects-- such that the abstraction includes ALL similar objects and the representation might relate to ANY such object).

The word "fruit", as a symbol, loses its "banana" denotation. This is to say, "fruit" loses the objective necessity that it behave like a banana rather than like a poisonous berry if it is understood in this way (if understood according to the assumption that the true nature of a thing might be specified from what is first a generalization of objects in a group to what is thereby a symbolic-only, or subjective, entity).

Similarly, the action of an individual which develops from "neural complexes" suggests the eating of a banana rather than the theoretical eating of a poisonous berry; while (on the other hand), the generalization "individual", if approached from the perspective of what is first a group of similar "human" objects and only subsequently specified to be true, suggests an equal probability of eating poison berries and bananas (pending objective proof that bananas are general cases and poison berries the specific exception. Such "proof" would be obtained ONLY through the death of the individual understanding reality such. Some proof!).

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; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:42:06
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with
	ESMTP id AAA17493; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	BAA06625 for virus-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 01:21:26 -0600
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:27:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Dylan Durst <>
X-Sender: ddurst@localhost.localdomain
Subject: Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign") In-Reply-To: <> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905302311460.11948-100000@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender:
Precedence: bulk

> What I had meant to say is that objects become symbolized through
> hypothesis and theory; though, the symbols thereby lose their object
> nature-- becoming a means for fantasizing a reality which is not in line
> with the natural action of objects.

I may eat bananas, and also worship them as a diety. But John Doe in Australia may never give a second thought to his banana slices in his morning cereal. Neither of us are going to disagree that they are generaly hard out of the box.

> Ultimately, this symbolization
> (when applied to survival) suggests that the individual might also
> negate his own objective existence for a fantasized reality.

I choked to death while kissing my banana in a bizzare worship practice. My environment set me up to do this, my neurochemistry is objective (i assume, since all it is is IS), my reality wasn't really 'fantisized,' its just the way it grew. We see the world through alot of neurons, who knows what is objective and what isn't. All we know is what others communicate to be common to them as well (I see a donkey in the cloud, you see a birthday cake, we both can find out that it is water vapor).

sorry my brain is twisted, i've been working all day,