Re: Macguffin

Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 02:40:13 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Macguffin"

    Received: by id IAA26876 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:09:26 +0100
    From: <>
    Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:40:13 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Macguffin
    Message-ID: <3B69BAAD.17027.25F6BFF@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 2 Aug 2001, at 18:10, Bill Spight wrote:

    > Dear Joe,
    > > > > Neither is the word "giraffe" really a tall, long-necked,
    > > > > four-legged, leaf-eating african denizen, but the word stands
    > > > > for, that is, symbolically represents, its referent, as does the
    > > > > personal pronoun.
    > > >
    > > > And what, pray tell, is the referent for that "I"?
    > > >
    > > For you, it is that dynamically recursive conscious self-awareness,
    > > that emerged from your material substrate brain as you developed
    > > from infancy, which asked that question. For me, it is the one that
    > > answered it.
    > But that "I", for me, depends on my brain, and could not have been a
    > giraffe. That's the illusion I was referring to.
    The fact that the self depends upon its material substrate brain for
    its existence is a point in favor of the existence of the self, not an
    argument against it.
    But your existence is not an illusion, for existence is an a priori of
    efficacy. To do, one must be. You could not have chosen to ask
    an intentional, self-referent question coded in a symbol system,
    and then actually done so, without existing as an intentional, self-
    consciously aware, symbolizing entity with free choice possessed
    of a modicum of causal efficacy. Not only that, but let's look at the
    statement "the idea that there is a self is a delusion". Well, either
    there is a self or therer isn't. If there is a self, then the statement is
    true, and there is no delusion, If there isn't a self, however, there
    would be no one to be deluded, and delusion requiring a deludee to
    exist as delusion, once again, there could be no delusion. There is
    no wriggle room between the absurdity-killing horns of this viciously
    lethal logical dilemma. Some people maintain that the self is a
    construct people may use in some situations and not in others,
    without coming to grips with the consequences of the answer to
    the question of who constructed the construct, and who chooses to
    or not to use it in particular situations. Then there are those selves
    who self-contradictorally deny that selves - including their own self -
    exist, and therefore not only display incoherence (for when one
    rejects logic, as one does when one insists that the insister
    doesn't exist - the very definition of self-contradiction - one cannot
    even argue a position, for one would have to use the selfsame logic
    one has already rejected in order to do that), but in addition display
    their ignorance of their own incoherence; in other words, not only
    are they nonsensical, but they are oblivious to this fact. Most of
    these people, who reject the evidence of their own senses and
    cognitions to assert what cannot be if they are even able to choose
    to accept or reject such apodictically self-evident evidence, are in
    memebotic thrall to an eastern religious meme which imposes its
    own filters to logic, reason and rationality, much as a certain
    western religious meme imposes the same filters regarding
    evidence for evolution. Such people, even more self-
    contradictorally, are emotionally atteched to the delusion that they
    do not exist; in other words, they have bizarrely bound up their self-
    esteem, their self-concept, even their sense of self-worth, with the
    religios dogma-based fantasy that they, as selves, do not and
    cannot exist. All one can do when one confronts such people, who
    are actually self-deluded enough to spend their selves in the
    service of denying that they even possess them, is to sadly shake
    one's head and walk away, consoling oneself with the thought that
    dinosaurs could not survive a novel physical environment, and that
    perhaps ideas which confront evolving knowledge, such as
    nonselfism and creationism, will mercifully (for the sake of those
    who would otherwise become infected and inflicted by such
    transparent fallacies) follow the same course.
    > Best,
    > Bill
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see:

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 08:13:38 BST