Keith,
Actually, I think this helps a lot.
Unfortunately, I don't agree with this notion of negative & positive. A
zero on the abacus can also be described as "all the counters being
elsewhere." That is, it's not whether something is or isn't, but rather
that it is or isn't *there* (where you want it to be for some reason). Even
if you can't see it, it is, somewhere. This applies to all similar
*physical* situations, I think, and not just counting systems. The question
of existence of the thing after it's been actually changed (e.g. burning
something, or melting it, or blowing it up, or whatever) is a separate issue
that is not so easily treated.
Going back to your original paragraph, I think you mean that one must accept
the existence of the conscious agent that originates a thought?
Cheers.
Fil
On 4 April 2011 03:52, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Filippo,
>
> I'm not sure that saying it again will make it any clearer. Face-to-face we
> could probably resolve the things very quickly.
>
> Any event is positive - that is, it happened - a zero in binary is a
> positive state - a zero in an abacus is a negative state (it is the state of
> simply the absence of a counter). When we read an abacus, we treat the
> absence as a presence or else the system makes no sense.
>
> So, all events, in consciousness, to be an event in consciousness, must be
> deemed positive (existing). However, when we are conscious of being
> conscious, we treat the positive moment as negative by virtue of treating
> the moment as possibly being other than itself. The disjunctive (or) is the
> basic logic of thinking - the conjunctive (and) is a sub-logic based on the
> disjunctive.
>
> hope this helps
>
> keith
>
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|