> > It seems to me that the atom "inferred according to the logic of
> > the perspectivism of consciousness" (i.e., as an artifact of
> > consciousness) is not exactly disconnected from your "physics of
> > neurophysiology." Or am I missing something?
>
>I blanch at your calling the phrase "physics of neurophysiology"
>mine, since I didn't use that phrase.
Strange, I swear I see that very phrase in the following paragraph, quoted
directly from _your_ post, which is exactly where I got it from (my emphasis):
>>The eternal recurrence is a neurological phenomenon, and is
>>exquisitely bound up with physics, but it is the _physics of
>>neurophysiology_ that we need to examine, not the physics of
>>Alpha and Omega.
>I was trying to point out
>that my original use of the word "physics" had a referent broad
>enough and abstract enough that I could have just as accurately
>used the word "physiology" to refer to that broad, abstract
>referent, given the context of my use of the word.
>
>Do you people have bodies? Do you type with fingers? Do you see
>through your eyeballs and hear through your ears, or are you
>just sucking this text straight out of my mind without any
>physical intermediaries? I do not understand what is so
>difficult to grasp about what I'm trying to refer to.
I guess I must have just caused the said non-existent phrase to magically
appear in your post after the fact of your having posted it. Either that or
I _must_ be just sucking your text straight out of my mind (dreadful
thought). In either case, I have to admit I am having great difficulty
grasping what you are trying to refer to. Guess, I'll just have to mark it
down to my neurophysiological deficiencies--seeing text that, I'll take your
word for it, really isn't there. Anybody else similarly afflicted?
Best,
Steve C.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---