In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[Paul Mackin]

On 3/16/2012 7:29 AM, alice wellintown wrote:
> Am gonna go wit Paul M's trinity and say N, F, and M.
>
> A tree falls in the park. Its primary qualities, those things that are
> in the tree or of the tree, fall. All these primary qualities, some
> have argued, can be distinguised from the secondary qualities,
> qualities that are not in or of the tree but are the power to produce
> an effect in a woman who sees the tree fall.
>
> What is it that has the power tp produce this effect in the woman who
> sees the tree fall? This world, not the tree or the park or even the
> woman, but the world as it appears is a manifestation of the power to
> produce an effect on Woman.
>
> This power is not above, but below.
>
> Now, this is nothing new in Western thinking. Aristotle documents the
> debate and, of course, Newton' absolute and relatives, are like like
> atoms and the void, and are what philosophy calls a material reality.
>
> We are talking about N, F, and M. And these three are interested in
> something called consciouness and so they look below it and find
> knowledge of how we may KNOW reality.  Why are they interested in
> consciousness? Because that is where we get to in the West when these
> guys come along. We are, at that point, interested in Knowing and how
> we know and what we can know and the limits of knowing and so on.
>
> Now there three dudes continue to have an impact depite the fact that
> we have given up on knowing and turned to an obsession with language.
> We live no in adigital age or revolution, nor even in a rtechnological
> one, but ina communications revolution and that revolution is being
> done in English. Imagine that!
>


And the favorite kind of consciousness of interest to the three dudes is 
FALSE consciousness

M inability to see self interest

N failure of will to power

F desire for what is feared

Which is where computers come in (strange but true)

Computers aren't cursed with false consciousnesses, from which one might 
conclude all important decisions should be turned over to them, but of 
course we don't want to do that.

No, our sense is that, although computer may have the advantage, we must 
plod on with our human ideologies, hangups, delusions, neuroses, etc., 
etc. and hope things will turn out fairly OK.

As to the matter of knowledge we must accept the reality that we are not 
omniscient (as God is supposed to be) but are stuck with clunky old 
reason--what we now call language--and reason/language depends on even 
clunkier old concepts or ideas which no two people will agree on the 
meaning of (as if meaning meant anything).

There's so much more to say, but I have to take the dog out.

P