Dr. Strangelove (was: Clarification for cpunks_anon at einstein.ssz.com)

[mattd]

 >>> But this is a well-established unsolvable problem in > philosophy. It 
is impossible to examine your fundamental > ideas for they are what you 
stand on to examine. What > you think are basic are at least one step up 
from fundamental.

But you can cheat if there is a feedback. Suppose that an external party 
(as opposed to multiple personalities housed in the same wetware) diagnoses 
you with attribute A (eg. "you write in disconnected fashion and often 
mention "state") which you neither understand nor agree with. You then, 
blindly, do the opposite of A (~A) <<

George Castanza tried this once and it worked well.

 >>(write closely related sentences and never mention state). This is 
called acting and many can do it on regular basis. -- Damn, I must stop 
referring to Kubrick. <<

It sounds like a similar problem to freudian psychiatry when it attempts to 
examine the unconscious.Or booting up (bootstraps) a computer from 
nothing.Problems of philosophy; Mmm, reminds me that 
someone,(wittgenstein?)once said philosophizing could be compared to having 
a fever (that needed curing.) Damn,I must stop referring to Clarke.