Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

Joe E. Dees (
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:17:20 -0500

From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to:

> RE: "...Objects do not act they are acted upon.."
> Joe,
> Any and all objects have a potential to act which is part and parcel of
> their objective characteristics... "balls" (for example) "roll", this
> action is contained as a potential in the characteristic "roundness" (a
> characteristic which is inseparable from the object characterized thus).
Balls are either pushed or pulled (acted upon) by a force external to them; say, someone's hand, or gravity. Shape and surroundings dictate how an object is moved by such action (due to, mainly, the mass/force ratio, friction and center of gravity).
> ...
> The "self-glorify" inclusion in the post was my attempt to discern WHY
> some people refuse to see that their action is determined by objective
> characteristics.
In other words, if they disagree with the Brettster, they are not only wrong, they are vainly and willfully ignorant. How vain of you!
> Humans, because of self-consciousness, can be said to direct the self by
> way of self-awareness. This ALLOWS that an individual may *will*
> themselves to perform within certain parameters outside of what is
> "ideal" (assuming *ideal* action is that action which is prescribed by
> an objective logic-- thus will represents actions contrary to logic).
People are individuals; there is no single absolutely right way for everyone to behave in a specific situation; such an assertion denies the existence of individual abilities and histories. A lifeguard, in the absence of boat, line or life preserver, should jump in the water to save a drowning person, but a non-swinmmer would be better advised to seek one who knows how to swim (for both their sakes).
> As such, *self-glorify* (in the post) refers to the illogic of the
> position which you support (your position: intentionality is related to
> human will such that will is contrary or opposed to a prior
> intentionality though is justified by a self which intends).
And what would be the prior intentionality, Brett? Are you trying to smuggle your God Thingie in again as a puritanically condemnatory normative device? I sincerely hope that one day you are able to grow beyond the fallacious reliance upon such devices.
> 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!: