The psychological view which arises from a potential Self would use the term
"reasoning". This Self, though, is contrasted from an active or willful
"self", which is more properly *reactive*--that is socially sanctioned--and
therefore does not exist independently, and is contrasted from "ego" which
is really existence and being trying to resolve the uncertainty of having
two parts whose uncertainty cannot be resolved without the Self as prime
cause--this Self which is destroyed and/or denied by the self which is
reactive against Self--that is, which is circularly modeled on ego (which
cannot see itself so must destroy both Self and self); that is, "Self" is
NOT the self which is a 4 part system, the one which creates the illusion of
non-existence (obviously wrong on the surface of things) where "existence"
doesn't see "being" by using the social "self" to deny the prime cause of
Self)...THIS self (the nihilistic, taoist, buddhist, pagan, etc. self)
would try to say that we can see what is "reasonable"--by it's existence in
the external world (minus ourself)--but that we cannot "reason" (which would
imply a Self).
Or, beginning with the prime cause of "there is no prime cause", most people
(the "pageantry", "peasant", "mean", "average", "pagan", population) would
say that it is reasonable to destroy reasoning since reasoning reveals that
we are unreasonable.
Brett
At 12:18 AM 9/9/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>> All reasonable behavior before humans and
>> probably most after humans was discovered accidently and retained
>> because it conferred some advantage to the actor. The origin of the
>> behavior has nothing to do with whether it is reasonable or not.
>Ahhh, the ol' "reasonable/reasoning" monster rears its shaggy head once
>more!
>-Prof. Tim
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Important letters which contain no errors will develop
errors in the mail. Corresponding errors will show up in the
duplicate while the Boss is reading it.