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

Brett Robertson (
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:48:05 -0500 (EST)

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

Not a bad essay. When you learn how to discuss things in a logical manner (without namecalling and un-supported personal attacks); then, I may address some of the more blatant misconceptions herein.

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 23:38:45
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with
	ESMTP id XAA10353; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	AAA04809 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:29:09 -0600
Message-Id: <> From: "Joe E. Dees" <> To:
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:30:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign") In-reply-to: <> References: "Joe E. Dees" <>'s message of Mon, 31 May 1999 23:38:26 -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender:
Precedence: bulk
From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:14:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	Re: Yin/Yang (was: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign")
Send reply to:

> Thanks, Joe... I found this interesting. I wonder, though:
> You say that "in the absence of a world" logic would be a "tautology"
> (there would be nothing on a person's mind)...
Not only that, but since world-concept and self-concept evolve isomorphically from their interface in perception/action, there could not be a mind for that nothing to be on. Potential mind develops into actuality through confrontation with experience, and our conceptions are perceptions which have passed into memory, lost their spatiotemporal specificity, and had their invariants purified and crystallized into symbols (language).
> How would logic have been derived "in the absence of a world"?
It wouldn't have, neither would a self have been able to emerge in order to derive it.
> Thus, what is logic when applied to itself EXCEPT a reference to the
> world which it represents (rather than a meaningless "tautology")?
As Kant said; concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind. What he failed to see (he philosophized prior to the appearance of Charles Darwin (phylogony) or Jean Piaget(ontology) upon the scene) was that concepts emerge from the generalizations and individuations of the commonalities and differences between and among percepts, and recurse to inform them (give them the eyes of knowledge born of personal history).
> As such, is the world not about "logic" (nor logic about the world)?
The world and the self are for each individual self-awareness co- primordial (because we tautologically cannot be aware of (remember) the period in our development before we emerged into awareness), yet the architectonic of the self is being built by confrontation with experience and the extraction of the invariant laws and logic of such interactions from birth, long before it matures into recursive self-awareness, and indeed, such a dipolar and isomorphic world-constitutive and self-constitutive process makes the subsequent emergence of self-and world-consciousness possible by laying the hierarchical pre- and subconscious groundwork for it.
> Finally, what is this "mind" which you see as separate from the "world"
> such that "logic" might be MERELY A=A (without the A's applying to
> something which exists)?
We are neither seamlessly blended with the world, nor are we nonrelationally bifurcated from it, but rather we are in a dynamic and recursive interrelationship with it (not one, not many, but system). The zen master says "Neti, Neti (not this, not that)"; we are at once not and not-not the world, and neither absolutely, for we are the forever incomplete self- and world-reference which can be placed either both inside or outside the world-system from which we emerge, or neither inside nor outside it, and the paradox is unresolveable within the system. As Kurt Godel said, it's an undecideable proposition. As Maurice Merleau-Ponty and his lady friend (not lover - Sartre enjoyed that privilege) Simone DeBeauvoir said, our position vis-a vis the world is fated to be ambiguous. As Martin Heidegger said, being-in-the-world is a fundamental interrelation of human consciousness. And as both Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre maintained, our existence is absurd (dynamic and unstable; not admitting of a fixed essense).
> ps. some of your jokes go beyond what is, in my mind, acceptable
> behavior for mature (intelligent?) adults
Most of your assertions and contentions are convoluted beyond occamian acceptability, and when unwound and stripped of their obfuscatory language are discoverable to be plainly wrong. This really pisses me off, but not as much as your dismissive manner (you demonstrate no intellectual basis upon which you could justify granting it to yourself), and the contemptuous and deific tone of imperial sway your error-ridden rhetoric affects. I understand that you have a need, considering your mental problems, to cling to order wherever you can find it, but it is unconscionable to illicitly conjure a faux order out of flawed cloth and then proclaim it as some sort of quasi-divine revelation of absolute truth to all and sundry.
> 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!: