Alex:
I am about to download a systems analyzer sort of thing (48 min.) to try to get my background off the eggyolk yuck it seems to be enamoured with. So, this will be a vulnerable acknowledgement of your "lost me" post, the final for the day.
I say vulnerable because I am not at ease discussing concepts I have not previously handled - and am, therefore, possibly, a fool for even attempting to do so.
I believe your entire second paragraph, and half of the third, are "interpretations" of A. You say what it is, what it isn't. You, face it, have fairly well spelled out A.
Then I. Oil and water. Sure.
All I was trying to say was: It seems marvelous that we have evolved to a point where we can hypothecate A, and then place it in a range where we can even conceive of addressing it with I.
My point, for months, has been the admission of our own absence of complete knowledge. Yet, being able to skilfully juggle A's and I's is thrilling - we are using our playpen 'hello life!' toys, and having serious fun in doing so.
If A were truly the abstract sine qua non you verbally hold it to be, you wouldn't have means of expressing it. None at all.
But you do, don't you? (Have means, that is.)
I have, for decades, held that we are an intermediate species. The A and I stuff is that sort of elementary school touch-feel learning/fun experience that don't mean shit, except that we can do it.
Forget the undisciplined wordiness of this note, simply reread your post and really repeat that A ain't an interpretation without crossing your fingers.
If, on the other hand, the line you draw between A and I means that we are essentially ignorant about totality of existence, and nothing more intellectual than that, I will say: Yeah. I've admitted vulnerability here. George |
