From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:53:35 -0500 (EST) To: email@example.com Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science) Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> RE: "...Objects do not act they are acted upon.."
> 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
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: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: