Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:44:51 +0100
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Theo Schramm wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> DONNY:
> "Theo, I basically agree w/ you about "sentiant" not meanining
> "determanant." The best synonem for "sentiaent" is "aware" and the best
> synonem for "determinant is "programed." However, you also said that
> static patterns are "completly devoid of dynamic influance" and are
> "predictable in every way." What's predictable in every way?"
>
> I said nothing of the sort. My e-mail has been down for a couple of days
> and I've missed a few messages, but I'm absolutely certain the quotes in
> the above passage do not come from me. This is not my thinking at all -
> care to explain the origin? Did I get very drunk one night and talk
> nonsense?
:D
Rest asured you don't have a drinking problem (at least not so
far
as I know). The two qotes above were actually from quotes embeded in
your
text and I mised the transition. My bad. Let the record show that it
was
Magnus who said the above, not Theo.
Also, to set another record straight, I still have some problems
w/ Bodvar's SOTAQI idea:
"The modification is SOTAQI
(S-O thinking as Q-Intellect) which means that Q-Intellect
(generally) is the ability of an idividual (biological organism) to
view itself as different from other (society) and thereby give rise
to the subject-object intuition which in time grew into the
S-O-METAPHYSICS."
Basically its the same quam I've naged on before. The
intellectual
level comes after the social one, it's dependent on society, but society
is not dependent on it. But you do need to have S-O thinking (or
"consciousness" which really says the same -- I/This, me/not-me) in
order
to have a society. Fish, ants and birds don't have societies (except in
a
loose, basically metiphorical sense). As I've said before, a societies
ability to exist depends first and formost on the ability of it's
individual constituants to diferentiate between social entities and
non-social entities -- minded-beings and mindless-beings, or (perhaps
put best) people and (mere) things. The "mind" is not a thing but is a
set of abilities/capacities, most important of which is the ability to
recipricate w/ other minds. We are psychological in our thinking; we
want to put the mind, the self, and personhood "in here." But these
things (really all basically the same idea: the self... the subject) are
PUBLIC tools... like parlament, schools, and even language. They are
owned by no-one and exist in public, social space.
S-O thinking (consciousness) has been around as long as society
has (society = a group that has a life independent of its individual
constituents [ie. Americans are born and die, but America lives on.]),
but the intellectual level, which did begin back in Greece w/ the onset
of the phonetic alphebet at mass literacy and serial (alphebet-like)
thinking, relly has only taken proper shape since the Enlightenment w/
it's middle-class value of objectivity ("Look, I don't care if you are
the King of Bohemia; I can PROOVE that..." or, if you were around for
one of my earlier posts, "Master Haydn, I thought you knew better!").
Consciousness was around for a long time before the 18th century.
It's a good start, Bo, but I still see a few bugs in it.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST