Schroder sq and the new talea

Nandric, you seem focused on your brain, al la the material (as you see, I too can speak in other languages, yet seemingly, only prepositionally so...).

I am not asking what is the state of your brain - its electro-chemical state - when you are not thinking. I asked what is the state of your consciousness, its nature, when you are not thinking?

Do you think that your brain - the material matter - is you, or definitively defines your consciousness?

Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. Well, at least I know this much Latin! If this is what you believe then tell me so, clearly.

I would note that many people who are attached to linguistic deconstruction also want that discipline to be a science - it makes them feel, I suppose, part of the post-modern materialist milieu. I would also note that these same types of minds define all consciousness as necessarliy emanating and bounded by the material, or the brain, because they are focused on looking for the truth only in the material, like the brain.

Saying that I persist, you mis-speak: I did not push you. I have only asked you one question. Again:

As you watch your own mind when it is not thinking, who are you, i.e. who is the watcher, that witness?

We know that you are not in a coma in this non-thinking waking state, so I assume your reference to dream states and coma was merely a jest.

What/who are you when you are not thinking? If you can not see a thought-thing, does this then feel like a No-thing-ness.

Psychology stuff? Yes, I know about that...

Answer, but not with BRAIN:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images.

M-

Dgarretson, Zarathustra was no "Uebermensch" ( as wasn't Nietzsche ...;-) ....) and in the fact of the german sense of the word he neither postulated him.
What you listed as the needed features of the "uebermensch tonearm" is exactly the common problem I was talking about - it is a far from complete listing ( and thus an incomplete "blue-book") . There a few very important issues not mentioned in that short list. They are missing in that list and they are missing as a complete package in the tonearm designs we have encountered the past 5+ decades. They aren't addressed as a whole because they aren't all recognized.

Lewm, I am very sorry to correct you on this, yes of course in british English billion has traditionally meant a million million.
As it does in German and most anywhere in the known (limited...) universe.
However, - not in the US of A.
The american meaning of billion (i.e. "a thousand million" ... ) has long become standard in technical and financial use ( and often produces misunderstandings in international use...) in the USA and it is now more or less used it in all circumstances.
Another fine example how simplification of language can turn against its purpose.
To put it in simpler words and to avoid any further misunderstanding: the particle accelerator (or "atomic smasher"...;-) ... ) built in central europe near Cern consumed in its genesis the total sum of approx. 2 million millions dollars. Which is about double the current ( if I remember right) fiscal deficit of the United States. A lot of money spent just for the hope to get an idea what really happened during an infinite short moment approx. 10 thousand million years ago .....

Dear Asa, dear Nandric, regarding the brain vs thinking per se "conflict", I would again like to briefly point to R. Steiner and his idea/concept of seeing the process of thinking as a fixed point in both human existence and philosophy.
Might there be a solution ?

Dear Dertonarm, As I stated before I am realy astonished
with the extension of your eloquence. As you stated elswhere you consider your self to be 'a child of enlightment'. Ie the dream regarding homo universalis. I have never 'met'a better example. But I noticed this. In the çontext of áudio system you are able to relate tonearm,
cart,TT, amps.and speakers. This is obviously RELATIONAL
issue. Correlation of those, say, different parts is the
same. But when you are talking about ,uh, philosophy you
are using only concepts. There are limitations on what you
can do with concepts. So no wonder we get 'adding up' on
qualitys. Add éssence befor the word object then inherent
or éxtraherent qualitys and even the values. Those are morphems wich you can add as you please with the illusion ofsome 'extra meaning'. Read any philosopher you like about
essence and you will get 10 of them while 'the essence' is
supposed to be one. Now I mentioned Freges invention to deal with cocepts as function with one argument and relations as function with two or more arguments.There is a
theory of relations so we can talk about relations in relational terms. But the 'subject predicate' sentence form
is not suitable for relations. The most peaople 'see' (sic)
some 'name' in the subject place and provide or add up
predicates to the (pre)suposed name. So 'the Germans are
defeated by Stalingrad by the Russians' seems to be about
Germans but 'the Russian defeated the Germans by Stalingrad' express, as Frege would say, the same thought.
The most strange construction is when people put some quantifier in the subject place. Thy then think that those
are also names with refering function. But then why complain with: 'someone has stollen my car?' If this quantifier is a name with refering function you should be able to find this person.
Asa thinks obviously that 'not','nothing',etc is some kind of philosophical concept. One with some very important meaning that is probable only available to him,
Heidegger, and some. But this is ,uh, a ordinary quantifier
that should be treated as (universal) quantifier 'all'.
Ie: there is no object that satisfied conditions Fx and Gx.

Regards,