Interactionism[edit]
Interactionism is the view that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, causally interact with physical states. This is a position which is very appealing to common-sense intuitions, notwithstanding the fact that it is very difficult to establish its validity or correctness by way of logical argumentation or empirical proof. It seems to appeal to common-sense because we are surrounded by such everyday occurrences as a child’s touching a hot stove (physical event) which causes him to feel pain (mental event) and then yell and scream (physical event) which causes his parents to experience a sensation of fear and protectiveness (mental event) and so on.[6]
Non-reductive physicalism[edit]
Non-reductive physicalism is the idea that while mental states are physical they are not reducible to physical properties, in that an ontological distinction lies in the differences between the properties of mind and matter. According to non-reductive physicalism all mental states are causally reducible to physical states where mental properties map to physical properties and vice-versa. A prominent form of non-reductive physicalism called anomalous monism was first proposed byDonald Davidson in his 1970 paper Mental events, where it is claimed that mental events are identical with physical events, and that the mental is anomalous, i.e. under their mental descriptions these mental events are not regulated by strict physical laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_solid_geometry
Workings of CSG
The simplest solid objects used for the representation are called primitives. Typically they are the objects of simple shape: cuboids, cylinders, prisms, pyramids,spheres, cones.
It is said that an object is constructed from primitives by means of allowable operations, which are typically Boolean operations on sets: union, intersection and difference.
 |
Whose voice gives agency to fragments of apprehension and memory…forming, arranging, connecting, unifying psychic criteria into a living whole of prose and prosody?
As one poet, Wallace Stevens, stated the question, who arranged this rendezvous?
One does not create poetry simply by possessing the will to do so, nor does one blunder into its numinous dominion by a swoon of enchantment.
One must be in love with the face and form of creation. To paraphrase Spinoza: Be drunk on God.
But not besotted with belief…aspiring to be some Infallible Pope of Bar Stool Logos…
Rather, to be able to make a a home in being lost…to recognize:
The homunculus of aspiration, lost as well, squatting amid the ruins of towering rage.
Granted, like you, homunculus, my prevailing sense of self has been besieged by contretemps and coincidence; even more like you, I am enraptured by the distraction.
Our kind…are dazzled by broken bits of the approving sun. Amassing solar shards the way bower birds shore glinting baubles, I’ve witnessed you bartering with penurious angels for a glimpse of the totality that caused their fall.
(What we won’t do for the buzz provided by primal grace. Although we carry Eden within us…knowing it is as provisional as paradise.)
Your need for recognition leaves you exhausted: At day’s end, you collapse upon sweat-sodden sheets, dreaming of your shit-dust empire…built from hoarded, moldering triumphs, the ash of incantatory wit, and the atrophied promises you made to your future self.
Your mind — such as it is — is an inhuman reflection cast by daemonic mirrors: You mistake the welter of fragmented drives and desires for the deathless dreams of numinous seeds.
Come morning, you negotiate your existence amid a city of visionary vermin and indifferent right angles; you drag your putrefying hopes down to the banks of Eternity’s burning river. There, you turn, face east, and mutter your desperate prayer of entitlement to the distracted dawn.
A filthy breeze rises from the river in reply.