Re: Phenomenology

From: Joe E. Dees (
Date: Sat Feb 12 2000 - 00:52:23 MST

Date sent: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:53:11 +1100
From: Damien Broderick <>
Subject: Re: Phenomenology
Send reply to:

> At 05:04 PM 11/02/00 -0600, Joe Dees wrote:
> <a precise of various people's views of stuff, adding: >
> >My addition to this is that the
> >complex referencing
> >structure of contexture is, on the level of definition rather than
> >positionality, also the structure of sign/sign relations in sign
> >systems, and that the relations between these symbolic
> >contexture maps and the territories of the perception/action
> >contextures are sign/signified relations. Self-[c]onsciousness
> >learns/constructs, utilizes and traverses these systems.
> And? So?
> Damien
> [who manfully refrained from employing the standard Deesian method of
> reply, which would have required 15 more pages of complete pointless
> citation of the prior post]
So it's interesting and perhaps useful to figure out things, and that
which seems at first blush to be central and fundamental (the
ontology of human consciousness) has a pretty good chance of
being significant. If it's correct, knowledge has been advanced; if
not, we close off an unprodictive alternative, which also can lead to
an advance in knowledge (of what's NOT true). Some people would
rather play pinochle; I'm not one of them.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:40 MDT