On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> of self could you form from such material?
> My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
> Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> the material for the self.
> What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> be oneself.
> --
> Jeff Rubard
> http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> Essays on theory, culture, and politics
I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !

So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> > Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> > persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> > of self could you form from such material?
> > My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> > what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> > contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> > objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> > from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> > proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> > self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body)..
> > Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> > material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> > Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> > realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> > the material for the self.
> > What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> > presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> > in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> > such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> > account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> > reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> > place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> > structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> > judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> > matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> > rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> > be oneself.
> > --
> > Jeff Rubard
> > http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> > Essays on theory, culture, and politics
> I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
>
> So the fairytale went
> "One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."

So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...
"Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> > > Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> > > persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> > > of self could you form from such material?
> > > My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> > > what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> > > contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> > > objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> > > from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> > > proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> > > self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
> > > Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> > > material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> > > Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> > > realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> > > the material for the self.
> > > What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> > > presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> > > in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> > > such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> > > account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> > > reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> > > place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> > > structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> > > judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> > > matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> > > rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> > > be oneself.
> > > --
> > > Jeff Rubard
> > > http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> > > Essays on theory, culture, and politics
> > I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
> >
> > So the fairytale went
> > "One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."
> So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...
> "Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:08:45 PM UTC, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> > > > Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> > > > persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> > > > of self could you form from such material?
> > > > My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> > > > what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> > > > contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> > > > objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> > > > from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> > > > proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> > > > self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
> > > > Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> > > > material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> > > > Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> > > > realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> > > > the material for the self.
> > > > What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> > > > presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> > > > in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> > > > such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> > > > account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> > > > reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> > > > place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> > > > structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> > > > judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> > > > matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> > > > rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> > > > be oneself.
> > > > --
> > > > Jeff Rubard
> > > > http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> > > > Essays on theory, culture, and politics
> > > I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
> > >
> > > So the fairytale went
> > > "One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."
> > So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...
> > "Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
> I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/i-ve-lost-my-identity-on-the-mysteries-of-foreign-accent-syndrome?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:18:09 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:08:45 PM UTC, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> > > > > Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> > > > > persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> > > > > of self could you form from such material?
> > > > > My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> > > > > what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> > > > > contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> > > > > objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> > > > > from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> > > > > proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> > > > > self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
> > > > > Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> > > > > material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> > > > > Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> > > > > realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> > > > > the material for the self.
> > > > > What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> > > > > presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> > > > > in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> > > > > such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> > > > > account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> > > > > reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> > > > > place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> > > > > structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> > > > > judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> > > > > matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> > > > > rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> > > > > be oneself.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jeff Rubard
> > > > > http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> > > > > Essays on theory, culture, and politics
> > > > I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
> > > >
> > > > So the fairytale went
> > > > "One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."
> > > So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...
> > > "Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
> > I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.
> https://getpocket.com/explore/item/i-ve-lost-my-identity-on-the-mysteries-of-foreign-accent-syndrome?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Oh so deep.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:08:45 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
> > > > Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
> > > > persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
> > > > of self could you form from such material?
> > > > My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
> > > > what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
> > > > contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
> > > > objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
> > > > from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
> > > > proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and
> > > > self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
> > > > Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
> > > > material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
> > > > Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
> > > > realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
> > > > the material for the self.
> > > > What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
> > > > presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
> > > > in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
> > > > such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
> > > > account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
> > > > reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
> > > > place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
> > > > structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a
> > > > judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
> > > > matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
> > > > rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
> > > > be oneself.
> > > > --
> > > > Jeff Rubard
> > > > http://opensentence.tripod.com/
> > > > Essays on theory, culture, and politics
> > > I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
> > >
> > > So the fairytale went
> > > "One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed some form of ID, that too was still in the house together with my CV & every photograph I had of myself & relatives & with friends as 'evidence of being'. My question is tho my evidence of being is occassionally challenged is it always legally copyrighted."
> > So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...
> > "Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
> I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.

2022 Update: I've seen this one before. "You see, when they work the logic of it out..."