Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (5217)	12/19/2000 8:51:36 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Sorry, Solon. I'd assumed that you'd been following the content of Mitch's and my discussion. I was in awe that two people, one of who I assumed would generally agree - (that'd be you) were disagreeing with the part of the philosophy that seemed most obvious (to me). Heck, that part was someone else's thinking anyway!!! Cogito, ergo sum. Let me rewind a bit here. The division between identity and non-identity grows from childhood. We begin life thinking that everything is us. One of the cognitive development steps is at 4 years of age when a child learns that they have information that others don't have. They learn at this stage that others can't read their mind. In fact this is an important developmental step for social reasons. Before that, the child thinks everything is "me" and originates from and concerns only "ME". So, my friends and fellow seekers, prepare to educate me. How on earth do we not know me from not-me or is it only a matter of degree? I'd use a Venn diagram but that is way too binary for what I'm proposing. Maybe if I showed a pair of interlocking circles with the small area of "me" [AND] "not-me", a little eye-shaped area, drawn in dashed lines and shaded! This seems to be the area of disagreement. Note to Mitch: I agree if you don't view the principles as recursive, that this is tautological. But a tautology only applies if the repeated assertion of A=B ALWAYS produces the same answer. That is why I directed you to that post to Solon. This is especially not true (IMO) with repeated (infinite) assertions.