Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
Brett Lane Robertson (unameit@tctc.com)
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:24:25 -0500
At 10:44 AM 9/30/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
>On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
>> >How's `bout: Implied-Objective Reality?
>>
>> Too cumbersome? How about physical reality?
>
>Works for me.
>
>-Prof. Tim
>
Seems you two have been talking about a *rationalistic* "physical reality".
Three contrasts from that perspective are shown on
http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/timebox.jpg . What changes in the outcome of
the definition of meme (That is what this is leading toward, isn't it? A
basic foundation from which two or more might come to a definition of meme
based on some common understandings of terms?)...what definitional changes
would you expect from a "rational mental" perspective, or an "irrational
physical" perspective or an "irrational mental perspective" (these are shown
graphically on the web page mentioned)? I think the definitions would be
the same if arrived at from any of the above and that the process of finding
a common ground was--more to the point--a process of coming to understand
*different* groundings.
Further, since it seems that the two of you are now ready to tackle the task
at hand (whatever that is) using the same perspective; I suggest that you
use the term "rational physical" for the perspective chosen and simply
"reality" for the term which is being defined--as the definition of the term
should remain constant regardless of the perspective chosen (that is,
"reality" is not affected by the perspective used to define it).
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before," Bokonon tells
us. "He is full of murderous resentment of people who are
ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard
way."
Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"