First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Wed Sep 8 10:53:26 EST 2004

On 8 Sep 2004 06:54:47 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<413c719f.22600721 at netnews.att.net>...
>> First Causes
>>                                                   -----
>> The only thing proven of itself as the source and first cause of
>> everything are differences and cognates of differences. And it is
>> in terms of these elements that the categories of being are to be
>> examined and explained in strict mechanical terms of one another.
>Could there be differences without space and time? Could there be
>differences without two things to be different? Could there be
>differences without a function to evaluate the difference?
>How can difference be primary when it is secondary to all these other
>If a difference is a thing in itself then why isn't the first cause
>'things' not differences?
>Postmodernism is a version of the old intellectual game where you
>'prove' black and white are the same by suggesting that white is 'only
>known' by its difference from black and black is 'only known' by its
>difference from white 'therefore' they are the same. Post modernists
>got hold of this and realised that if it tricks 80% of people then
>they could make careers out of it.
>Knowledge actually works by 'not different'. Only one thing is not
>different from a particular thing but all other things are different
>from it. Properties that are 'not different' across several things
>provide a basis for classification. In fact not difference and
>difference are just relations, in systems science 'contains' or 'does
>not contain' is preferred to stress the generality of classification. 
>It also points out the geometrical character of classification which
>leads us seamlessly into maths and physics. Difference leads us

Ah, yes, another guru of positivism. In positivism as in systems
science there is no demonstrable generality of classification. And so
like any good positivist, with no ability to demonstrate universality
you just assume the generality of classification without the vaguest
notion of how to prove it's true. Perhaps you would be so good as to
let us in on the secret of how space and time can exist without
differences, how black and white can exist, how systems science can
exist without differences, and even how science can exist without
differences. I can prove differences are universal. You can't prove
the identity of anything is universal.

Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net