British Gun Control and the Case Against Moderate Speech
E.Holmes
On Fri, 16 May 1997 17:15:14 -0500, Jaffo wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/Unlike most people, statistics CAN change my opinion, if I can be sure the
/statistics are reliable and "targeted" to a specific issue.
/
/This is why I fail.
/
/Most people are like Ellen. When I argue with Ellen, she always falls back
/on anecdotal stories. She places great value on personal testimony and the
/kind of "first-person" stories you see on the stage at political rallies.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I depend GREATLY on statistics. But everytime I pull some out, you
challenge their validity, then say you don't know enough about it, then
you won't read the stats - one supposes you are searching for some right
wing slanted propaganda, which best I've been able to tell just THRIVES
on little anecdotes. All you've ever said about stats to me is that you
can prove anything on either side with them. I nod wisely, seeing no real
reason to argue about it, but I do not believe that is true. I think stats
are highly telling, but I also know that you have to know WHAT is being
measured, and HOW, and with what in opposition. And stuff like that. And
yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about and can give you examples of
what I mean. If you want them, ask.
So, knowing (so I thought) your contempt for stats, I would switch to
stories about people I've known. You always seemed to like the stories
better, and they ARE more fun than The Univeral Almanac. But now that
I know you prefer stats, I will feel free to return to them.
I suppose too many the statistics support the liberal arguments. And the
socialists, maybe. The best the anti-liberals can come up with is the
welfare queen and Newt's broom-pushing janitor story - both of whom were
proven fictional. Oh, and this gun-nut with the web page likes to give out
raped-women stories, which he PROUDLY presents as his arguments against
gun control, KNOWING he made them up. (Though gun-control isn't his real
issue; spreading dissent is his main purpose.)
Do I sound irritated? I love you dearly, but yes I am. I expect better
from you than the above mis-statements, especially about me. Sorry to
go so public with this, but you started it and I'm tired of meekly
looking the other way when you do this sort of thing (including the
generational bashing). I'm only angry in a superficial, quickly over it
manner, so don't be paranoid - but if you're going to start up a
Libertarian group at UTA, get used to the fact that I'm not going to
play your anecdotal punching bag.
And the case for gun control in England is so flawed it isn't even
amusing, except in a sick perverted sense. Would you like some real
statistics, or does reading this diatribe by a flame-hobbiest really
amuse you more? And that is exactly what the little punk is, someone
who gets obvious pleasure from starting and keeping flamewars going,
then writing about how silly his opponents are. Well, sheesh, this
IS usenet, and most people do NOT argue well here at all.
Nevertheless, it is major mondo SICK for the American gun-nuts to go
about proselytizing for doing away with gun control in other countries,
especially countries that don't WANT every tomdickandharry's kid to
be totin'.
From The Economist, Oct 96:
"According to a recent opinion poll, Britons favour a ban on handguns
by 81% to 15%; Americans oppose such a ban by around 60% to 40%.
"The difference in the gun-control argument in the two countries goes
to the heart of the difference in their politics. Americans start from
their constitution, and thus from questions about fundamental liberties.
Britons, without a constitution to hang their principles on, argue
pragmatically. There is much to be said for the American way; but the
American passion for liberty means that unimportant freedoms sometimes
blow up in their faces. Britons, in contrast, argue on the basis of
outcomes, rather than principles. They do not like what the freedom to
carry guns has done to America, where the murder rate is ten times higher
than in Britain, and 70% of murders are carried out using firearms."
And THAT, dear one, is where you often misinterpret ME. I place my
faith and support on the side of pragmatism, not principle. You're a
pretty good pragmatist yourself - probably the only reason you're able
to put up with me, even when I'm being moderately quiet <G> - but you
are, as the young should be, far more idealistic than I am.
Quite frankly, I don't see what a people's militia (which is really
what the National Guard is) has to with handguns, and I have nothing
but contempt for the people who go on and on whining about having a
right to own handguns. Handguns do NOT a militia arm. Do anyone REALLY
think a 'militia' armed with handguns is going to make a dent in either
Federal or State forces come the Revolution? Disgusting.
Not only that, but if people really understood the historical context
of the Constitution, all the NRA whining would be shown for what it is.
Of course, the article is more about how moderation doesn't win
arguments, that picking a viewpoint and sticking with it through
thick and thin no matter what is thrown against it, will win more
arguments than moderation - and that is true. But at what cost?
Winning the argument by default and by wearing people down is not
productive to reaching a compromise. I suppose compromise is anathema
to some people, but one can only hope we don't too often elect that
type to government - which is one reason the public was muchly
miffed with the last Congress, as I see it.
Sorry if this annoys you. Join the club. <G> And having said all
that, I feel much better.
E.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In triangle.bizarre did E.Holmes a stately USENET-post decree:
: Do I sound irritated? I love you dearly, but yes I am. I expect better
: from you than the above mis-statements, especially about me. Sorry to
: go so public with this, but you started it and I'm tired of meekly
: looking the other way when you do this sort of thing (including the
: generational bashing). I'm only angry in a superficial, quickly over it
: manner, so don't be paranoid - but if you're going to start up a
: Libertarian group at UTA, get used to the fact that I'm not going to
: play your anecdotal punching bag.
OK, lovely.
Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
(a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
Nothing personal, but you get the idea.
--Gurk[3]
[1] March, 1995.
[2] Jaffo, my friend, if you originally put it in TriBizz to get the
NickSu and other Triangular lads to see it, I'd recommend sticking it
in AFTB or just leaving it in APJ, since many of us read both of those.
[3] ObTriBizz: The other day, I was able to formulate nuclear weapons
(read: "NEW-CLEAR WEE-PUNZ") from Jason Sullivan's bilgewater release
valve and some turnip extract. Watch the Discovery Channel, folks.
--
"How can the arts overcome the slow dying of men's hearts that we call
the progress of the world, and lay their hands upon men's heart-strings
again, without becoming the garment of religion as in old times?"
--W.B. Yeats
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 17 May 1997 16:49:41 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
:Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
:discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
:(a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
:many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
May I recommend triangle.bizarre.moderated?
I send posts to tribizz for one reason and one reason only, Otto Baun can't
read APJ. If he can read AFTB, I'll start sending there there instead.
Jaffo
--
"A true measure of your worth includes all the benefits others have
gained from your success." - CULLEN HIGHTOWER
E.Holmes
On Sat, 17 May 1997, Jaffo wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/In alt.politics.jaffo, on 17 May 1997, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
/
/:Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
/:discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
/:(a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
/:many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
/
/May I recommend triangle.bizarre.moderated?
/
/I send posts to tribizz for one reason and one reason only, Otto Baun can't
/read APJ. If he can read AFTB, I'll start sending there there instead.
[1]
Yeah. What he said!
Me, I forgot aftb was a serious group and was just cutting down on
the xposts. I figured the population was the same for both & wanted
everyone to know I was miffed. Does anyone have any remaining doubts
about my miffedness? If so, I can pick some entirely UNRELATED new
groups to copy stuff too. Like alt.sex.hello-dolly or something.
E.(or talk.moderate.moderated, that would be a good forum)hOlMeS
[1] You forgot the <pats head> part. I added it to the headers.
--
"I have myself been "attacked" twice that I know of.
It's like being nibbled to death by ducks." -- Phil
Boswell, describing the Gr*borclan activities.
James Ryan Younce
In triangle.bizarre Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: OK, lovely.
: Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
: discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
: (a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
: many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
: Nothing personal, but you get the idea.
I'm confused. I thought you, Gurk, personally, had decided
alt.fan.the-bob was a dead group.
Ryan Younce
Kevin P. Neal
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>[2] Jaffo, my friend, if you originally put it in TriBizz to get the
>NickSu and other Triangular lads to see it, I'd recommend sticking it
>in AFTB or just leaving it in APJ, since many of us read both of those.
I don't actually read AFTB, or any AF* group for that matter.
I also need to buy a newsreader that understands cross-posts. At least
summer is here and I'm working full-time.
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Andy Simmons
In article <5llhln$e...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,>: I'm confused. I thought you, Gurk, personally, had decided
>: alt.fan.the-bob was a dead group.
>
>(Like a corpse, you know.)
Yay. Now we may argue politicky stuff in Dead Earnest. Or the-BOB. But
"Earnest" was funnier.
--Didymos
--
d a s i m m o n @ u n i t y . n c s u . e d u - Didymos, PPoS
"Do you realize how difficult it is to try to transmit knowledge
to what is essentially a dried puddle of masturbatory emission?"
--Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.politics.jaffo did James Ryan Younce a stately USENET-post decree:
: In triangle.bizarre Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: : OK, lovely.
: : Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
: : discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
: : (a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
: : many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
: : Nothing personal, but you get the idea.
: I'm confused. I thought you, Gurk, personally, had decided
: alt.fan.the-bob was a dead group.
It is. But it's not decomposed or anything. Just lying very still.
(Like a corpse, you know.)
--Gurk
--
-------------------------------------------------Andrew S. Damick-----
"It's true...no man is an island. But if you take a bunch of dead guys
and tie 'em together, they make a pretty good raft." -- Earl, Red Meat
----...@ncsu.edu----------------------------------------------------
Jaffo
Andrew, one of the greatest joys in my life is watching you irritate the hell
out of people.
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Sun, 18 May 1997 12:49:38 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wanted to share:
:Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
:into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
Theater, actually. A watered-down kind of politics. <ducking>
:My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
:knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
Well, then everyone BUT YOU knows...<G>
:> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
:> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
:> our culture.
:
:All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
I believe he was referring to *American* culture: a nebulous collection of
outdated social mores, obsolete moral codes, and a bunch of stupid anecdotal
stories written by Dead White Men. <G>
:> Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
:> toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
:> Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
:> seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
:> realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
:
:That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
:the term. Too jargony.
It should be interesting to see Andy define postmodernity. I look forward to
it. This is his favorite subject, and I'm not 100% clear on it myself.
:> [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
:
:You may proceed.
...said the Spider to the Fly....
Jaffo <-- munching popcorn
Susan Hogarth
> Jaffo wrote:
> :Susan Hogarth wrote:
>
> :Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
> :into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
>
> Theater, actually. A watered-down kind of politics. <ducking>
;-)
> :My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
> :knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
>
> Well, then everyone BUT YOU knows...<G>
<sigh> so I've been told...
> :> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> :> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> :> our culture.
> :
> :All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
> I believe he was referring to *American* culture:
Yes, but what *I* meant was isn't that (identification with the
specific) true of *all* cultures?
> Jaffo <-- munching popcorn
Pass me some?
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life."
-- Stilgar (Frank Herbert)
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
...
> My technique usually involves starting with a personal story, something
> that I or someone I know have seen. Then, I retell the main structural
> parts of the story, and apply each of them to the structure of the
> argument and line of philosophic reasoning I'm supporting. I explain how
> I (or my acquaintance) learned the principles from the experience, then I
> begin to expand the principles outward and, if I have specific statistics
> to use, I include them.
Fine. Dandy. Lovely.
> If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
> and so forth.
Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> our culture.
All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
> Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
> toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
> Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
> seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
> realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
the term. Too jargony.
> [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
You may proceed.
Otto Bahn
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT "GUN CONTROL"
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor
safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm
only those who are niether inclined or determined to commit crimes.
Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for
the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater condidence than an
armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with
approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individul
discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of
the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the
Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and)
keystone...the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable...
more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they
are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms
everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go,
all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session
of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to
enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787,
Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."
(Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being
armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are
afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now
of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
^^^^^ [OttoEmphasis]
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact
the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
(Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people,
trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country."
(1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphisis added.
[See Mike Bartman's description of the term "Well Regulated", and
remember that it does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th
century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional
army.] [OttoNote: Well regulated meant organized, drilled]
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms."
(Eliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable
(threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a
large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the
use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large
than to have them properly armed and equiped." {responding to the
claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty} "There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger
of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat
it with gravity or raillery (mockery).
FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:
Samual Adams: "The Consitution shall never be construed to prevent
the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass.,
86-87, date still being sought)
Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every
assumption of authority...the Constitution was made to guard
against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They
promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." (Source
still being sought)
Thomas Jefferson: "On every occassion...[of Constitutional
interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the
debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us]
conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823,
Letter to William Johnson)
Carlos May
[t.b. removed 'cause my ISP doesn't let me post to the triangular
heirarchy]
Otto Bahn (JGA...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu) wrote:
: E.Holmes wrote:
: > Quite frankly, I don't see what a people's militia (which is really
: > what the National Guard is)
: Not true at all. The founding fathers made it clear the militia was
: for the people, unlike the Guard which takes orders from the governor
: or president. See followup post.
Correct. Under the USA Constitution, "the militia" is was not to take
orders from the Governor nor President. It's subject to the people's
representatives, Congress.
Those who point to their rights in Amendment II should also remember their
responsiblities in Section 8 #15.
--
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
* Headquarters: alt.fan.tito ** "Tounge Of Frog" *
http://www.angelfire.com/la/carlosmay/
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 19 May 1997 20:29:19 GMT, Carlos May wanted to
share:
:Those who point to their rights in Amendment II should also remember their
:responsiblities in Section 8 #15.
I'm not sure what Froggy is referring to. I think this is it:
{ARTICLE_ONE ^paragraph 45}
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This sounds like an authorization for funding the National Guard. At the very
least, the Federal government does not have the authority to appoint officers.
Jaffo
Carlos May
Jaffo (ja...@onramp.net) wrote:
: In alt.politics.jaffo, Carlos May wanted to share:
: :Those who point to their rights in Amendment II should also remember their
: :responsiblities in Section 8 #15.
: I'm not sure what Froggy is referring to. I think this is it:
: {ARTICLE_ONE ^paragraph 45}
: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
: the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,
: and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
: service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
: the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
: militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Yes, that's Article 1, section 8 (which enumerates the powers of
Congress), numbers 15 and 16.
: This sounds like an authorization for funding the National Guard. At
: the very least, the Federal government does not have the authority to
: appoint officers.
My point is, any of the armed groups who claim to be "militia"
under Amendment II of the Constitution, as far as I can tell, should
acknowledge that Congress has the power to call on them to
enforse the laws of the United States, and that Congress has authority
to discipline them. Unless they can explain why they fall under
the definition of "militia" in one part of the Constitution but
not other parts.
-- F.
Jason and Heather
Carlos May <fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> My point is, any of the armed groups who claim to be "militia"
> under Amendment II of the Constitution, as far as I can tell, should
> acknowledge that Congress has the power to call on them to
> enforse the laws of the United States, and that Congress has authority
> to discipline them. Unless they can explain why they fall under
> the definition of "militia" in one part of the Constitution but
> not other parts.
That's because there are two different classes of the militia.
10 USC (S) 311.
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or
who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens
of the United States and of female citizens of the United
States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National
Guard or the Naval Militia.
Congratulations. You're probably a member of the militia.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
: > and so forth.
: Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
: into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
Neither, actually, though I have, in the past, considered both. It does
mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
"Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
: knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
I do, I'm almost always being facetious. After all, that is one of the
classic logical[1] fallacies.
http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/, and all that.
: > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
: > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
: > our culture.
: All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
: > Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
: > toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
: > Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
: > seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
: > realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
: That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
: the term. Too jargony.
It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. For a good understanding of
the term, I recommend Terry Eagleton's _The_Illusions_of_Postmodernism_.
Eagleton's a Marxist (in the literary-philosophic sense), but, despite
that, he gives excellent criticisms of the postmodern sensibility[2] that
non-Marxists can understand and appreciate. The book is rather dry, but
that's mostly on account of its high density. Briefly, however, the
postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy. You can tell I'm
not a fan.
: > [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
: You may proceed.
"Logos" is Greek for thought, word, law, Reason, Word (no, it's not a
repeat), idea, truth, philosophy. (Eastern philosophies have the similar
concept of the Tao.) Thus, the philosophic idea of logocentrism is that
there is Truth and that everything extends outward from it. Contrary to
what critics of logocentrism might tell you, most logocentrists do not
claim to have found and defined the Logos. Instead, they simply claim to
believe its existence and to be pursuing it, to, as C.S. Lewis put it,
misunderstand a little less completely.
In the Christian philosophy, for instance, logocentrism would put God as
the Logos, the Absolute Truth on which all depends. Other philosophies
would name the Logos as something else, but true logocentrists tend to at
least be theists (there is a God, though it may not be rigidly defined).
Critics of logocentrism, primarily found in literary-philosophic circles
as deconstructionists these days, define it as the fallacy of believing an
arbitrary Logos to be the true one. Indeed, when a human claims to have
the Absolute Truth written down on a piece of paper and wholly
interpretable and understandable by him, it is my belief that he probably
does have a false center.
However, the paradox of the non-fallacious sort of logocentrism is that,
while no human can completely grasp the Logos, his life's purpose is to
attempt it, the more incomplete misunderstanding. The Logos, while
reachable, is not graspable, and the Logos which can be named or pointed
to (in the sense that it has been defined and boundaries drawn) is not the
true Logos, for only the Logos understands itself. Thus, while we can see
it, we cannot fully comprehend it.
Substantialism is a logocentric philosophy. It generally refers to a
basic Substance from which all stems outward, and it also refers to the
Substance of individual things, termed in a revision of the Platonic sense
of the Forms. See some of its literary beginnings and underpinnings in
the ideas of mimesis in Sir Philip Sidney's _Defence_of_Poesie_.
We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
temporary host site soon.
--Gurk
[1] I believe that logic, while a useful tool, can only take one so far.
This is why I believe that mysticism[3] is required for the sort of belief
and understanding which is commonly termed "faith." Interestingly enough,
you might be shocked to know that a higher percentage[4] of scientists
proclaim some sort of faith than do normal people who rely on their
lackluster knowledge of science to justify their atheism or agnosticism.
[2] I label it a "sensibility," because there is no real defined
philosophic system which can be labelled "postmodernism." Indeed, it finds
much of its strength in its refusal of unity. The only true unity is in
its diversity (according to itself, anyhow). Critics of it point to a
number of recognizable characteristics, which I've touched on briefly
above.
[3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about the
Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
[4] According to a report I heard on NPR.
--
_/-_|\ Andrew S. Damick http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
| | Prophet du Smerp Proto-Eminent Substantialist
\_-__* <----- Garner, NC g u r k @ n c s u . e d u
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Stefan Kapusniak a stately USENET-post decree:
: Gurk? Got any recommendations for works on this subject capable
: of causing Jaffo's HEaD tO ExPLODE!!!11!!!111
Cicero. A lot of it.
...and pretty much the entire Western Canon. S'right, boys and girls.
You, too, can learn the secret of SPEAKING and WRITING by READING.
--Gurk
--
Due to recent cutbacks, the light Andrew S. Damick
at the end of the tunnel has been Independent Reality Contractor
turned off until further notice. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www
Otto Bahn
E.Holmes wrote:
[I shall try to side step the anger]
> Nevertheless, it is major mondo SICK for the American gun-nuts to go
> about proselytizing for doing away with gun control in other countries,
It is not sick to proselytize for anything I believe in,
whether you like it or not.
> especially countries that don't WANT every tomdickandharry's kid to
> be totin'.
It certainly shouldn't be forced on them. If they are so
genuine in their dislike, no one will change their mind, right?
> From The Economist, Oct 96:
> "According to a recent opinion poll, Britons favour a ban on handguns
> by 81% to 15%; Americans oppose such a ban by around 60% to 40%.
> "The difference in the gun-control argument in the two countries goes
> to the heart of the difference in their politics. Americans start from
> their constitution, and thus from questions about fundamental liberties.
> Britons, without a constitution to hang their principles on, argue
> pragmatically. There is much to be said for the American way; but the
> American passion for liberty means that unimportant freedoms sometimes
> blow up in their faces.
Yes. Cars can do that too. Some people prefer safety to freedom.
That's your perogative. I prefer freedom.
> Britons, in contrast, argue on the basis of
> outcomes, rather than principles. They do not like what the freedom to
> carry guns has done to America, where the murder rate is ten times higher
> than in Britain, and 70% of murders are carried out using firearms."
> And THAT, dear one, is where you often misinterpret ME. I place my
> faith and support on the side of pragmatism, not principle.
Since you've admitted putting pragmatism ahead of principle,
I see no point in arguing guns any further.
The question is now: why is pragmatism better than principle?
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
E.Holmes wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't see what a people's militia (which is really
> what the National Guard is)
Not true at all. The founding fathers made it clear the militia was
for the people, unlike the Guard which takes orders from the governor
or president. See followup post.
> has to with handguns, and I have nothing
> but contempt for the people who go on and on whining about having a
> right to own handguns. Handguns do NOT a militia arm. Do anyone REALLY
> think a 'militia' armed with handguns is going to make a dent in either
> Federal or State forces come the Revolution? Disgusting.
Um, there's the handgun argument for individual self defense.
The militia argument is for things like rifles and such.
They are two different issues you've mixed up. The second
amendement allows arms for the latter issue, but it also
covers (whether we like it or not) the former issue. No
one is actually arguing the militias have a right to
(and only to) handguns.
> Not only that, but if people really understood the historical context
> of the Constitution, all the NRA whining would be shown for what it is.
Huh??? Disagree strongly on the historical context.
I'll send a follow up post.
--oTTo--
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
>
> : > If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
> : > and so forth.
>
> : Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury.
> It does
> mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
> "Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
Same thing, as far as I can tell - I must be dense :-( My standard
reply to this sort of thing is "small sample size". Of course,
*everyone* recognizes some universals - I guess I'd go for something
like "I notice that women seem to pee squatting," but mostly statements
like ""Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
seem to be used for rhetorical effect - you're trying to "paint a
picture", and often the person who is listening will just "follow
along". Sometimes this has very little to do with "reality" (or do we
need to discuss what "reality" is? :)
> : My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
> : knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
>
> Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
> knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
> I do, I'm almost always being facetious.
I think the way you phrased it, above, was really just a subtler version
of this.
> : > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> : > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> : > our culture.
>
> : All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
>
> Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
> generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
> or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
<sigh> I'm not communicating very well. What I meant was that the
identification with the specific is probably a *general* thing, and not
something specific to Western culture.
> : That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
> : the term. Too jargony.
>
> It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. ... Briefly, however, the
> postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
> identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
> grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
> and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy.
OK, thanks.
> : > [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
>
> : You may proceed.
>
> "Logos" is Greek for thought, word, law, Reason, Word (no, it's not a
> repeat), idea, truth, philosophy. (Eastern philosophies have the similar
> concept of the Tao.) Thus, the philosophic idea of logocentrism is that
> there is Truth and that everything extends outward from it.
OK; nice.
> ... true logocentrists tend to at
> least be theists (there is a God, though it may not be rigidly defined).
Yes, I can certainly understand that.
> We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
> which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
> temporary host site soon.
Do you have one in mind? Or are you still looking?
> [1] I believe that logic, while a useful tool, can only take one so far.
> This is why I believe that mysticism[3] is required for the sort of belief
> and understanding which is commonly termed "faith." Interestingly enough,
> you might be shocked to know that a higher percentage[4] of scientists
> proclaim some sort of faith than do normal people who rely on their
> lackluster knowledge of science to justify their atheism or agnosticism.
Footnotes to footnotes ;-) I'm a bit surprised at [4], though not
"shocked".
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
"I must work harder." -- Boxer (Eric Blair)
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In triangle.bizarre did Otto Bahn a stately USENET-post decree:
: John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individul
: discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of
: the US)
YAY! John Adams is my clansman. (That makes him Jaffo's clansman, too.)
It does NOT fail: EVERYONE I have met from my clan (MacDuff) is REALLY
COOL. Even some of the people I HAVEN'T met.
HERE'S A LIST:
Andy Simmons
Jill Barrett
William Gibson
J.R.R. Tolkien
James F. "Deerslayer" Cooper (not the author, a cow-orker of mine)
John Adams
Michael B. "Jaffo" Duff II
Scott "Smerp" Parkerson
: Samual Adams: "The Consitution shall never be construed to prevent
: the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
: keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass.,
: 86-87, date still being sought)
Another MacDuff! The named a BEER after 'im!!
--Gurk, who hasn't gone
MacDuff-ballistic in
a while, so you'll just
have to forgive.
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick _/-_|\ "Lay on, MacDuff, And damn'd be him
c l a n m a c d u f f | | that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"
Fifeshire, Scotland ----> *_-__/ --MacBeth, Act V, Scene VIII
Kevin P. Neal
ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
>In alt.politics.jaffo, on 19 May 1997 20:29:19 GMT, Carlos May wanted to
>share:
>:Those who point to their rights in Amendment II should also remember their
>:responsiblities in Section 8 #15.
>I'm not sure what Froggy is referring to. I think this is it:
> {ARTICLE_ONE ^paragraph 45}
> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
>the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,
>and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
>service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
>the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
>militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
>This sounds like an authorization for funding the National Guard. At the very
>least, the Federal government does not have the authority to appoint officers.
It almost sounds like it's calling for local police forces.
?
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > It does
: > mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
: > "Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: Same thing, as far as I can tell - I must be dense :-( My standard
: reply to this sort of thing is "small sample size". Of course,
: *everyone* recognizes some universals - I guess I'd go for something
: like "I notice that women seem to pee squatting," but mostly statements
: like ""Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: seem to be used for rhetorical effect - you're trying to "paint a
: picture", and often the person who is listening will just "follow
: along".
You're right, it is for rhetorical effect. However, rhetoric, in case
all you politicians out there have forgotten, is the art of debate. The
effect is to establish a common ground of some human or cultural
universal, and there are a good many of them out there, even if they're
things such as: All human life has inherent value.
Note that many of my arguments are based on recognizable universals (the
Substance of mankind), which is, of course, in direct opposition to the
anti-universalism of the postmodern era, something which I think is not
only naive, but radically impractical! We need universals such as the one
I name at the end of my above paragraph.
: Sometimes this has very little to do with "reality" (or do we
: need to discuss what "reality" is? :)
Well, if you're a materialist ("there is nothing but the physical world"),
you and I won't get very far. :)
: > Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
: > knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
: > I do, I'm almost always being facetious.
: I think the way you phrased it, above, was really just a subtler version
: of this.
Not at all. The difference is that the common ground which I am trying to
establish is being based on observable things, a discussion of behavior in
itself, not that popular behavior ABOUT something (i.e. opinion) makes
that something true.
: > : > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
: > : > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
: > : > our culture.
: >
: > : All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
: >
: > Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
: > generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
: > or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
: <sigh> I'm not communicating very well. What I meant was that the
: identification with the specific is probably a *general* thing, and not
: something specific to Western culture.
Quite likely, given some of the things I've read from the East. I know
the West far better, though, which is why I commented on it.
: > : That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
: > : the term. Too jargony.
: >
: > It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. ... Briefly, however, the
: > postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
: > identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
: > grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
: > and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy.
: OK, thanks.
Oh, yeah. Add in anti-universalism (though it's really just an offshoot
of anti-label and anti-identity stuff).
: > We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
: > which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
: > temporary host site soon.
: Do you have one in mind? Or are you still looking?
We have one in mind. I just have to beat up the guys concerned a little
bit more and a little bit harder.
--Gurk
--
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ gu...@ncsu.edu Andrew S. Damick
substantialist | companion | human | poet | author | believer | communicator
- - - - - - - d e u s j u v a t - - - - - - -
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> YAY! John Adams is my clansman.
Herfh! I can only claim Ethan Allen, who fought for
the colonies cause the Tories wouldn't pay him enough.
He got captured twice.
Also can claim one of the Morman Elders who stood over
the choosen site with Brigham Young. We wish we couldn't
claim him. Damn missionaries keep showing up like ancestral
ghosts.
We can also claim one General Jackman, commander of the
Vermont troops during the Civil War, and patron saint
of Norwich Military College. Of course, he didn't go
fight until the fight came to him when 200 confederates
snuck down from Canada and robbed a bank. War is hell,
so he patented the first transatlantic cable and somehow
managed to not get rich. These genes were passed on to
Abel Jackman, who invented a self starter for cars and
never marketed it.
And a Lawrence Jackman, state Senator of Vermont, back
when Vermont was cool, declaring war on Hitler three
months early and refusing disaster aid till recently.
And some drunk guy in Germany who got on the wrong boat,
ended up in Portchester, NY, and with his progeny guarenteed
the pyschiatric care industry would never go out of business.
Hmmm...I think I'll stop now.
--oTTo--
Climbing the family tree
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
to share:
:Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
:>
:> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
:> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
:
:What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
:that they lead to objective knowledge?
I saw this one coming a mile away.
Good luck, Andy.
I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
Jaffo
--
"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding who is for lunch."
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jason and Heather
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
> Jason and Heather wanted to share:
> > Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> >
> > that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> I saw this one coming a mile away.
*whistles innocently*
> Good luck, Andy.
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have
> had NO luck.
Funny, I didn't either. But -- ever the optimist -- I hope our
substantialist friends will have better luck with their epistemology.
Your philosophy does have one, does it not?
Jason and Heather
> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
that they lead to objective knowledge?
jason
Dan Knauss
> > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
>
> that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
irrational?
I think mysticism just admits that there is no pure objectivity or
rationality possible, but only provisional approximations of each.
Having made that admission it does not try the fruitless path of making
an idol out of the "objective" and pursues it only provisionally as it
assists in a certain context. It is also free then to pursue knowledge
through means entirely devoid of the attempt to gain
objectivity--various forms of vision and revelation. These means can
come most easily and directly through day to day experience--no weird
prophet/monk/jedi/madman weirdness. Love, for example, is the beginning
and end of knowledge as wisdom: philo-sophia. We moderns tend to repress
this truth, but exercise alleviates the atrophied spirit. Everyone has
some experience, probably many, that attests to our mutual, necessary
and natural entanglement with the complete otherness of a world of
knowing and being that we recognize but only as a land we forgot we
originated from. I use this analogy because objectivity and literality
fail at communicating the irrational.
Andy, I suggest you read Augustine's works. There is no obstacle between
the logic, rhetoric, language, and the mysterious other side of Logos.
Dan
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jason and Heather a stately USENET-post decree:
: Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: >
: > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
: What are those means,
It is difficult to explain, since they are non-rational. However, I
could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
exist for the materialist.
: and upon what foundation do you base the claim
: that they lead to objective knowledge?
Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
go, proof is not required." You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
argue for it. You cannot argue against it. You can only accept it or not
accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
of that paradigm.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. Damick - - - http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
PoetRhetoricianWriterConversationalistSubstantialistTechie
n o r t h c a r o l i n a s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y
Depts. of English and Communication, CHASS - gu...@ncsu.edu
Dan Knauss
Jaffo wrote:
>
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
> to share:
>
> :Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> :>
> :> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
> :> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> :What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> :that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
>
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
>
>
Reconciling all that with a philosophy capable of dealing with objective
reality is probably a better move than one that tries to promote
objective reality. Objective reality is only worth promoting when it
comes to good beer and the like. (Objective reality occuring in the form
of Guinness is the immanentization of some mysterious aspect of
divinity. Unfortunately, canning, pasteurization, and exportation kills
this to varying degrees. Therefore, at the good Guinness places outside
of Ireland, it follows that the location or proprietor is receiving a
special dispensation from God. Ask any Dubliner where the best pint is
outside of St. James Gate and you'll realize that this is not a
pointless fanaticism--it's a kind of theology.)
Jason and Heather
Belt the Bunny <be...@deviant.richnet.net> wrote:
> Jason and Heather (stei...@primenet.com) wrote:
> >
> > What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the
> > claim that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> you! Really! You're asking a mystic to elaborate on his mysticism
> to you?
I guess this mean my check for OT IV hasn't cleared yet...
> RATIONALIST PIG! EAT RABBIT!!!
Ptoo. Fuckin' velveteen.
Belt the Bunny
Jason and Heather (stei...@primenet.com) wrote:
: What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
: that they lead to objective knowledge?
YOU CAN'T PROVE MYSTICAL STUFF, YOU TWO YUTZES. I am surprised at you!
Really! You're asking a mystic to elaborate on his mysticism to you?
RATIONALIST PIG! EAT RABBIT!!!
--
One Rabid Rabbit. One Bad Bunny. ---------- be...@deviant.richnet.net ---
O F F I C I A L M A S C O T O F A L T . F A N . T H E - B O B
----- Belt the Bunny. Tired of being cute. -----------------------------
Otto Bahn
Jaffo wrote:
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
I see no reason to do so. An objective reality is one
we could theoretically all agree on; this by definition
leaves your (singular or plural) spiritual world(s) out
of the objective reality in regards to political
philosophy.
There are Christian anarchists who figure God's word
is probably more accurate than anything any stinkin'
government could say, but I don't think that's what
you meant.
> I have had NO luck.
Do unto others...
--oTTo--
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jason and Heather a stately USENET-post decree:
: > Jason and Heather wanted to share:: > > > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
: > > What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
: > > that they lead to objective knowledge?
: > I saw this one coming a mile away.
: *whistles innocently*
Well, since it was coming from someone who openly and passionately mocks
Christianity and things which remind one of it, I was not surprised. I
think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
(I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
>
>
> It is difficult to explain, since they are non-rational. However, I
> could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
> still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
> and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
> exist for the materialist.
Well, *that* explains a lot! I guess that's why I never hear God - I
must be a materialist. Does that mean I won't feel Hell?
I *did* used to think God was hiding in my closet (really!), but I never
saw him. I guess even then I was a "closet" materialist. Ha!
> : and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> : that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
> nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
> the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
blech. If I "know" that I'm the Savior of Mankind; does that make it so?
> And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
> PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
> antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
> go, proof is not required."
Not wanted, either, I suppose (it'd take away all the fun, wouldn't it?
The sense of superiority that you know something that "merely rational"
people "can't" know). blech.
> You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
> argue for it. You cannot argue against it.
Boy, don't *that* make it easy!
> You can only accept it or not
> accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
> through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
> inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
It irritates me when people say things like this. Christians often try
to pull something like this. They say "But *you* have an emptiness, a
yearning, don't you?" Well, I guess I do... hmmm... "So" (says
Christian), "that must be 'cause you are lacking God - *I* am not
yearning". It took me quite a while to get through this muddled
"arguement" (I'm pretty slow) - it's a little (lot) like a drug-pusher
saying "if you take this drug, you won't feel hunger or thirst anymore".
While that may be *true*, that wouldn not neccessarily be a Good Thing.
I *cherish* my hunger and thirst; it leads me to *food*. Extend the
analogy on your own, please; I'm getting tired of typing.
> The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
> paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
> materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
> of that paradigm.
yup. that about says it all.
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> ... I
> think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
> substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
> weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
>
> In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
Pot-kettle-black?
> (I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
you bet!
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > It is difficult to explain, since they are non-rational. However, I
: > could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
: > still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
: > and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
: > exist for the materialist.
: Well, *that* explains a lot! I guess that's why I never hear God - I
: must be a materialist. Does that mean I won't feel Hell?
Well, add in what I assumed all would: "Mysticism cannot exist in the
mind of the materialist." It's not so much a matter of belief changing
reality as it is simply wrong belief.
: > Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
: > nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
: > the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
: blech. If I "know" that I'm the Savior of Mankind; does that make it so?
No, it does not.
: > And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
: > PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
: > antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
: > go, proof is not required."
: Not wanted, either, I suppose (it'd take away all the fun, wouldn't it?
: The sense of superiority that you know something that "merely rational"
: people "can't" know). blech.
If you want to read superiority complexes into it, go ahead. I will say,
though, that you scoff pretty easily at the mystical because of it's
non-rationality. :) I don't think that rationalists -can't- know the
mystical; I think that, as long as they are purely rationalist, they
cannot. You see, I don't think that -anyone- is purely rationalist.
: > You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
: > argue for it. You cannot argue against it.
: Boy, don't *that* make it easy!
And infinitely difficult, as well.
: > You can only accept it or not
: > accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
: > through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
: > inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
: It irritates me when people say things like this. Christians often try
: to pull something like this. They say "But *you* have an emptiness, a
: yearning, don't you?" Well, I guess I do... hmmm... "So" (says
: Christian), "that must be 'cause you are lacking God - *I* am not
: yearning". It took me quite a while to get through this muddled
: "arguement" (I'm pretty slow) - it's a little (lot) like a drug-pusher
: saying "if you take this drug, you won't feel hunger or thirst anymore".
: While that may be *true*, that wouldn not neccessarily be a Good Thing.
: I *cherish* my hunger and thirst; it leads me to *food*. Extend the
: analogy on your own, please; I'm getting tired of typing.
Well, as useful a tool apologetics is, no one was ever argued into belief
in God. In fact, I'm of the belief that no one whom God doesn't choose to
believe in Him will. Predestination and all that. Radically unfair idea.
Oh, well. Fairness was never something I was too fond of, anyhow.
: > The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
: > paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
: > materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
: > of that paradigm.
: yup. that about says it all.
Sure does.
--Gurk
--
------== Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick, Prophet of Smerp ==------
--------===== http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ncsu.soc =====--------
------== EMBRACE SMERPOLOGY. IT TASTES LIKE CHICKEN. ==------
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > ... I
: > think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
: > substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
: > weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
: >
: > In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
: Pot-kettle-black?
:
: > (I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
: you bet!
Of course. Mystics[1] and pure rationalists[2] sit on opposite sides of
the fence. Each is antithesis to the other. The mystic asserts that
there is existence beyond that which can be experienced through the (IMO)
culturally over-privileged physical senses. The pure rationalist asserts
that there is naught indiscernable by his eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and
hands.
Neither can particularly argue the other into seeing his side, because the
mystic will give evidence of things mystical and the rationalist will only
give evidence of things rational. Both have made an essentially
unprovable presupposition. The mystic presupposes the existence of the
mystical. The pure rationalist presupposes the exclusive existence of the
material. Just as I cannot prove the existence of the mystical, one
cannot also disprove its existence. Just as the pure rationalist cannot
prove the exclusive existence of the material, I cannot disprove it.
Though it did a good many useful and good things, I am of the opinion that
the Englightenment has poisoned our thinking, that we are now under the
carefully constructed illusion that all we seek is graspable in some grand
gnostic vision by finite Aristotelean logic principles. The Enlightenment
instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
which is unproven is therefore false. We have deluded ourselves that we,
being gods, have no need of faith. What a depressing and ostrich-headed
notion.
--Gurk
[1] Note that mysticism does not preclude rationalism. It simply limits
its applicability.
[2] Note also that I think there are no pure rationalists. The pure
rationalist I speak of is a metaphorical person for the purposes of
illustration and discussion.
Michael Straight
Jaffo wrote:
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective reality out
there, our understanding of it will always be subjective to some degree,
and that your mystical experiences of God's existence are every bit as
philosophically defensible as, for example, a claim that you saw your
neighbor walking his dog yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that
all knowledge is no more or less well-grounded
You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God is
"properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of things
that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we assume other
unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world actually exists or
that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they were today.
I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries I've
read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff, but I will
say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand outside yourself
and outside of the universe and look at it all "objectively" kind of
ridiculous.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Jason and Heather
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> Jaffo wrote:
> >
> > I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> > faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
>
> Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective
> reality out there, our understanding of it will always be
> subjective to some degree, and that your mystical experiences of
> God's existence are every bit as philosophically defensible as, for
> example, a claim that you saw your neighbor walking his dog
> yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that all knowledge is
> no more or less well-grounded
Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
> You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
> influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God
> is "properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of
> things that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we
> assume other unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world
> actually exists or that the laws of physics will be the same
> tomorrow as they were today.
Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my list
of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very intelligent. He's
still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude himself as to what it is
he's trying to show.
And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
"properly basic" or "warranted".
That's fine, so far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far. As
Plantinga admits, whether or not an assumption is properly basic has
nothing to do with whether or not it is actually TRUE. What's more,
the fact that an assumption is properly basic does _not_ exempt those
who hold it from the responsibility of examining it further to find
out whether it is true or false.
To understand just how little Plantinga is shooting for, and how
useless his idea of warrant is in epistemology and the search for
truth, realize that at one time belief in a flat earth was "properly
basic"!
> I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries
> I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff,
> but I will say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand
> outside yourself and outside of the universe and look at it all
> "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an objective
philosophy.
Michael Straight
On 23 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > Jaffo wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> > > faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
> >
> > Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective
> > reality out there, our understanding of it will always be
> > subjective to some degree, and that your mystical experiences of
> > God's existence are every bit as philosophically defensible as, for
> > example, a claim that you saw your neighbor walking his dog
> > yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that all knowledge is
> > no more or less well-grounded
>
> Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
Actually, the people I'm thinking of (except maybe in the last sentence)
are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out that what
generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not really boil down to
"baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you suggest. There's a truly
beautiful proof of this that I can't fit in the margin here (that is to
say, I'd need to re-read a couple of books to really talk about this).
> > You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
> > influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God
> > is "properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of
> > things that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we
> > assume other unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world
> > actually exists or that the laws of physics will be the same
> > tomorrow as they were today.
>
> Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my list
> of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very intelligent. He's
> still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude himself as to what it is
> he's trying to show.
>
> And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
> agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
> assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
> "properly basic" or "warranted".
I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his beliefs. He
would argue that he has good reasons for believing in God but that those
reasons are not the sort of thing that you can turn into a "proof."
We both have good reason to believe that hitting me with a baton tomorrow
will hurt just as much as it did today, but you can't prove it today.
(I'm not sure if that's a good illustration for what Plantinga's talking
about or not, actually.)
I started to respond to the rest of your paragraphs but realize I was
really out of my depth..
> > I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries
> > I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff,
> > but I will say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand
> > outside yourself and outside of the universe and look at it all
> > "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
>
> I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an objective
> philosophy.
What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
Yes. While I cannot be %100 sure that my life is
not just the figment of some delusional being's delusions,
everything else is irrelevant if I give that possibility
any weight. How can 2 people bother to have a discussion
about philosophy without there being an objective reality
where both people agree each other exist, and words exist
too, with agreed upon meaning (should you bother to define
them)?
If things get overly subjective, you are just arguing
with yourself for all you can prove.
Religious experiences, while often real and tangible to
the individual (like the neighbor's dog), fail the test
of the PR-24 police baton. Assuming there is a god
*and* an objective reality, I have no reason to believe
mere humans would be able to understand all parts of an
objective reality. Ie., even though reality *is* objective,
only so much of it *appears* objective to humans. Whether
or not god can alter the "objectivity" of reality falls
in this category. Any philosophy attempting to account
for god claims to understand him.
In short, I still don't see why a belief in god need get
in the way, unless of course god decides that it's high
time he passed the PR-24 police baton test, at which point
it'd be a moot point anyway. We'd all have similar religious
experiences and could agree on how to define god.
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
> : Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : > acknowledgement of God's omnipotence in the matter and that there is
> : > nothing in us, despite the God-shaped hole, that innately moves toward
> : > God. God calls us.
>
> : Umm, in that case, what *is* the point in "seeking" God, or even
> : "listening" for Him? He'll just have to shout a bit louder to get my
> : atttention....
>
> You seem to be getting the point. :) One cannot build a tower to God or
> a bridge to any mystical thing. The point, therefore, in listening for
> such things is that our culture currently trains and socializes us to do
> precisely the opposite, to tune out all frequencies that aren't in the
> approved bands. If you shorten your antenna or turn your receiver off,
> it often doesn't matter how large or how obvious the signals are.
But your God _cannot_ be denied, can He? You talk as if God *will* speak
when He wishes, but then you say that I must be *listening*. How can I
deny God?
As for listening - I'm all ears, but I'm a busy woman (or *should* be!).
back to the lab...
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: But your God _cannot_ be denied, can He? You talk as if God *will* speak
: when He wishes, but then you say that I must be *listening*. How can I
: deny God?
You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny His
existence all you like.
--Gurk
--
-----------------------http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick Andrew S. Damick
"I smell like a married man!" --Andy "Didymos" Simmons gu...@ncsu.edu --
Packed with pheromones, Didymos really satisfies. -------------
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: >
: > In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > : Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
: > : >
: >
: > : >... The Enlightenment
: > : > instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
: > : > with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
: > : > which is unproven is therefore false.
: > : Guess those guys in the statistics department missed out on the
: > : enlightenment. They sure as hell don't reject an unproven hypothesis.
: >
: > What about an unprovable one?
: You're *very* good at this -
*modest nod* Only 'cause I read lots of the good stuff. That, and I'm
drinking milk!
: I've gotten lazy working around a bunch of
: pippeter-pushing molecular biologists....
...IN A JAR!!! (Had to. I mean, who wouldn't've?)
: Speaking for myself *only*
: I actually don't care too much for the word (or concept!) "proof" - I
: tend to concentrate on the accumulation of eveidence. I don't think
: there are *many* things I would consider *proved*. I guess I differ from
: many scientists in this respect.
Preponderance of evidence? You'd do well as a jurist for a civil trial.
I also believe what I believe based on an accumulation of evidence. I
simply see it as that I accept more forms of evidence than you would.
ME: "Your Honor, God told me that he was lying."
YOU: "Yeah, right."
--Gurk
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
>
> : > what I feel is life lived far below its potential. I'm a victim to this
> : > disease to, and that constantly gets me down.
>
> : I wonder who is "down" more - me or you? I suspect it's you, since you
> : say "that constantly gets me down".
>
> Solomon said that wisdom is sorrow, and persecution and hardship often
> follows hard on the heels of all who tread certain paths. Those are not
> evidence that those people are on the right paths, but their occurrence
> should not be surprising, neither should being "up" or "down" be
> considered (in)validation for any particular philosophy.
Yeah, but *he* called it a disease, not *me* (whine...). I just say I
don't feel very "sick".
> So? What is beauty in the materialist world but some easily explainable
> biochemical reaction in the human brain? Squirt-squirt. Flow-flow.
And your point is....?
> ... Without an
> immaterial soul, beauty can be nothing but some sort of highly specialized
> sexual/psychosomatic reaction to natural stimuli. Love's the same thing.
Well, if that's the way it is, I guess that's that. If I don't believe
that my Husband is my "soul mate" (a concept I also believe is poo-pooed
by Christians), does that make our Love any less? I don't think so.
Besides, we know (well, we *believe* :) the universe isn't
deterministic, and that chance has a *huge* role in everything from the
weather to whom you marry. Other elements than chance and "chemistry"
may be involved, too - I certainly wouldn't deny that offhand. But if I
was somehow to *know* my Love was "merely" chemistry and chance, I
wouldn't love any less. Is that really so hard to understand? I
*experience* love. I have *several* half-understood mechanisms of love
to think about which would *more* than explain it *without* (in my mind)
robbing it of its "specialness" - and you want me to consider it as a
*mystical* experience? It may *be*, but I'll just have to wait to find
out, I guess.
> In fact, in the materialist world, free will is mere illusion. Ro-bot-ic.
> We are purely the product of our atomic forces.
A believer in _predestination_ is worried about *that*???!!
It's *possible* that we *are* robotic. So? Wanting it not to be true
doesn't give me an "excuse" for not believing it, does it? You want me
to give up intellectual honesty because I don't happen to *like*
reality?
However, it so happens I *do* like reality (lucky me:). And whether that
reality is controled by the Creator, or by randomness acting on "atomic
forces"; I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.
I do *feel* like I make choices. Apparently, so do you. But just as in
Christian theology (and correct me if I'm wrong) God knows *everything*
that will happen; much of what I do is probably predictable. Perhaps all
of it. But that *can't* change what I *believe* to be true, no matter
how I *like* the idea. Does that make any sense? <whine>
It just so happens that I'm pretty comfortable with the universe right
now...
... aside from being exceedingly tired and under-data'd
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
> : >
>
> : >... The Enlightenment
> : > instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
> : > with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
> : > which is unproven is therefore false.
>
> : Guess those guys in the statistics department missed out on the
> : enlightenment. They sure as hell don't reject an unproven hypothesis.
>
> What about an unprovable one?
You're *very* good at this - I've gotten lazy working around a bunch of
pippeter-pushing molecular biologists....
Speaking for myself *only*
I actually don't care too much for the word (or concept!) "proof" - I
tend to concentrate on the accumulation of eveidence. I don't think
there are *many* things I would consider *proved*. I guess I differ from
many scientists in this respect.
--
Susan (what can I say - they're all shallow and I'm not...)
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: Yeah, but *he* called it a disease, not *me* (whine...). I just say I
: don't feel very "sick".
The sick rarely do. Besides, why should you base the validity of what you
believe on "feelings?" Where's the materialist explanation for that? I
mean, with that sort of philosophy, I could become a Unitarian Universalist
tomorrow, because I ate the wrong sort of turnip.
: Well, if that's the way it is, I guess that's that. If I don't believe
: that my Husband is my "soul mate" (a concept I also believe is poo-pooed
: by Christians), does that make our Love any less? I don't think so.
: Besides, we know (well, we *believe* :) the universe isn't
: deterministic, and that chance has a *huge* role in everything from the
: weather to whom you marry.
So, what's chance? Where does it come from? Is it governable by the Laws
of Thermodynamics? Where does chance come from in a material universe?
What about Chaos Theory? Explain randomness to me in such a way as that
it's not merely a band-aid to allow for free will in an otherwise
deterministic materialist universe.
If you're not determinists, what then? Epicureans, believing in the
Doctrine of the Swerve[1]?
: Other elements than chance and "chemistry"
: may be involved, too - I certainly wouldn't deny that offhand. But if I
: was somehow to *know* my Love was "merely" chemistry and chance, I
: wouldn't love any less. Is that really so hard to understand?
Sure is. You see, I don't see anything particularly special or privileged
about endothermic reactions coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle (not that I really know what the HUC is, but that's not the
point). What causes it to rise above everything else and make it love?
: I *experience* love.
The present experience is the closest we can come in this world to
touching eternity. It is what it is most like it. It is also how
God experiences all of what we refer to as Time, except He does it
all at once, since He exists outside of Time. The Past, Present,
and Future are all Present at once for Him.
What does it mean to experience love? Why should we value it? Why should
we value anything? Which combinations of biochemistry and Chance(tm) are
better than the others? Why?
: I have *several* half-understood mechanisms of love
: to think about which would *more* than explain it *without* (in my mind)
: robbing it of its "specialness" -
What is "specialness?" Define it for me in physical terms, if you don't
mind.
: and you want me to consider it as a *mystical* experience?
Yes. Don't do it because I tell you that you should, though. I'm just
some guy with a language, after all.
: It may *be*, but I'll just have to wait to find
: out, I guess.
You may have found out, but just not realized it.
: > In fact, in the materialist world, free will is mere illusion. Ro-bot-ic.
: > We are purely the product of our atomic forces.
: A believer in _predestination_ is worried about *that*???!!
I don't believe in predestination in the sense that our actions are
controlled. I believe in it in the sense that God has sent out the
call to certain people, none of whom deserve it.
: It's *possible* that we *are* robotic. So? Wanting it not to be true
: doesn't give me an "excuse" for not believing it, does it? You want me
: to give up intellectual honesty because I don't happen to *like*
: reality?
No, it's not the uncomfortableness of a concept that should be daunting,
but rather how untrue it rings. I have a friend who tells me that free
will is an illusion. He truly is a hard determinist, a rare thing to
admit. I still think that he actually knows that free will is not an
illusion, particularly since he lives his life that way.
: However, it so happens I *do* like reality (lucky me:). And whether that
: reality is controled by the Creator, or by randomness acting on "atomic
: forces"; I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.
If it is completely determined by atomic forces and "randomness" (whatever
that's supposed to be), "you" don't particularly exist. In fact, I don't,
either. In fact, this entire conversation is about as remarkable as a
couple of asteroids glancing off one another.
: I do *feel* like I make choices. Apparently, so do you. But just as in
: Christian theology (and correct me if I'm wrong) God knows *everything*
: that will happen; much of what I do is probably predictable. Perhaps all
: of it. But that *can't* change what I *believe* to be true, no matter
: how I *like* the idea. Does that make any sense? <whine>
Not really. I was with you there on the omniscience/predictability thing,
but you didn't go anywhere I could discern. Were you saying that one
could accurately predict you without the use of supernatural knowledge?
If that's true, that breaks it out of free will again. It makes you into
a mathematical formula or collection thereof, albeit a complex one, I'm
sure. You see, I think that free will cannot exist without God.
The materialist viewpoint, as a good friend of mine said, seems to be
irritatingly narrow. How can one have a wide appreciation of the Soul
and the Universe when one has decided that 99.99% of it doesn't exist?
: It just so happens that I'm pretty comfortable with the universe right
: now...
So? (Sure, I guess you'd put that as being "mean," but I don't think
that the comfort level of an idea has much to do with its truth value.)
--Gurk
[1] Doctrine of the Swerve: The Epicureans were atomists, a group of sort
of proto-materialists. However, to account for the fact that they didn't
want to be determinsists (since they had a moral philosophy), they came up
with the Doctrine of the Swerve. Basically, it states that atoms normally
move on completely predictable courses, but that, every so often, one just
goes haywire and swerves off course at a random vector. Voila, free will.
(Yeah, right.)
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Preponderance of evidence? You'd do well as a jurist for a civil trial.
> I also believe what I believe based on an accumulation of evidence. I
> simply see it as that I accept more forms of evidence than you would.
>
> ME: "Your Honor, God told me that he was lying."
>
> YOU: "Yeah, right."
<snicker> I think that about says it all...
--
Susan <haven't we heard *those* words before>
E.Holmes
On Fri, 23 May 1997 16:34:54 -0400, Michael Straight wrote in
alt.politics.jaffo:
/Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
Actually, Jaffo likes discussion about philosophy and especially
about cultural trends and how they've happened and where they
might go. And I love this thread and if I were feeling better,
I'd write in it. I was especially interested in how much I agreed
with Andy, and then you, regarding your respective philosophical
platforms. It reinforces my feelings of intense schizophrenia.
<G>
E.(and now to bed, perchance to sleep <BG>)Holmes
--
"Talk, Meow or get out of the Way." -- Fluffy
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Fri, 23 May 1997 16:34:54 -0400, Michael Straight
wanted to share:
:Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
Axe this thread? I wouldn't DREAM of axing this thread.
This is good stuff.
Jaffo
--
"Have versus have-not, or zero-sum thinking, belongs to the
Machine Age, not the Information Age." -- Steve Gibson
Ernest Brown
Start reading the works of Thomas Aquinas & Boethius, Jaffo. I especially
recommend THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY by Boethius, try to get the
Library of Living Arts edition.
You might also check out the URL below for more ideas.
Ernie
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:32:04 -0500
> From: Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.jaffo, alt.fan.the-bob, misc.misc
> Subject: Re: Logocentrism, Postmodernity, and Substantialism (Was: British Gun Control and the Case Against Moderate Speech)
>
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
> to share:
>
> :Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> :>
> :> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
> :> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> :
> :What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> :that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> I saw this one coming a mile away.
>
> Good luck, Andy.
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
>
> Jaffo
>
> --
> "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding who is for lunch."
>
> http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
>
>
>
Jason and Heather
Otto Bahn <JGA...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> Religious experiences, while often real and tangible to the
> individual (like the neighbor's dog), fail the test of the PR-24
> police baton. Assuming there is a god *and* an objective reality,
> I have no reason to believe mere humans would be able to understand
> all parts of an objective reality. Ie., even though reality *is*
> objective, only so much of it *appears* objective to humans.
> Whether or not god can alter the "objectivity" of reality falls
> in this category. Any philosophy attempting to account for god
> claims to understand him.
Exactly. What does this result in? Several thousand - if not million
or billion - different philosophies, all with their own subjective
understandings of the supernatural.
I don't find any one of these particularly offensive. If someone says
"This is my experience of God", then I'm more than happy to indulge
them. If I'm in a mood to be amused I may ask them for details about
their experience just to watch them squirm. I'm always amazed by the
kind of vague evidence mystics base their philosophies on. For
example, how do you go from some ecstatic experience to belief in the
truth of some _specific_ theological concept? How does the mystic
know that it was, say, the Christian God and not just Loki fucking
with his head?
It's funny how I never get an answer to that question.
But I am less than amused when said mystic suddenly claims that he is
the bearer of objective truth, then evades these questions. How can
you possibly build an objective philosophy on a subjective
epistemology? Hell, half of these "objective" mystical philosophies
don't even _have_ a stated epistemology, which is even more silly
than trying to build a philosophy without metaphysics because
epistemology is by definition the foundation of all the rest of our
knowledge.
In the absence of a coherent, objective epistemology, we are left
with what amounts to a "Just-So Story". "That's the way it is because
I said so."
> In short, I still don't see why a belief in god need get in the
> way, unless of course god decides that it's high time he passed the
> PR-24 police baton test, at which point it'd be a moot point
> anyway. We'd all have similar religious experiences and could agree
> on how to define god.
Exactly. But until she does, what do we have? And how can it said to be
objective? I'm not saying it can't. But I'm certainly going to remain
quite suspicious until I get a straight answer to this question.
And the longer they evade, the more suspicious I get. Just what is it
they have to hide?
Jason and Heather
> >
> > Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> > with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> > loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> > a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> > appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
>
> sentence) are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out
> that what generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not
> really boil down to "baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you
> suggest. There's a truly beautiful proof of this that I can't fit
> in the margin here (that is to say, I'd need to re-read a couple of
> books to really talk about this).
Um, I _am_ a critical rationalist. :)
Have been for a long time, but didn't find out the formal title for
my philosophy until someone said "Y'know, you sound like Karl
Popper", and I went "Karl who?" and proceeded to buy and devour a
bunch of his books. I consider it a point of pride that I came to
so many of the same conclusions he did independently.
I'm also an objectivist, but I base that upon the foundation layed
by critical rationalism's epistemology. I wasn't going to get to that
yet, but here you have jumped the gun and given away my hand. It
does throw a wrench into my cunning plan to lead the unwary down the
primrose path to unrepentant rationalism, but I must say it's a
delight to meet someone who knows enough to toss such an instrument
in the first place. Please do look up that proof. If you can give
me a reference, I probably already have it around here somewhere.
> > Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my
> > list of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very
> > intelligent. He's still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude
> > himself as to what it is he's trying to show.
> >
> > And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
> > agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
> > assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
> > "properly basic" or "warranted".
>
> I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
> Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his
> beliefs. He would argue that he has good reasons for believing in
> God but that those reasons are not the sort of thing that you can
> turn into a "proof."
Here we get into the question of what constitutes a "good" reason.
If your reasons cannot be formulated as a logical proof, by what
standard can they said to be good?
(And yes, that is a rhetorical quesiton. I know the answer. I just
want to see if you do, or how you will state it.)
> > > I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting
> > > summaries I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument
> > > about this stuff, but I will say that I find the notion that
> > > you could somehow stand outside yourself and outside of the
> > > universe and look at it all "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
> >
> > I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an
> > objective philosophy.
>
> What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Independent of the mind. Verifiable.
Philosophies are ideas, so they can't exactly be independent of the
mind. However, philosophy isn't just a mental game. It can be based
on verifiable premises, and a philosophy can be tested by observing
whether its application yields desirable results.
Philosophy practiced in this way has a lot of similarities to a
science, and it's no coincidence that critical rationalism deals
quite a lot with the philosophy _of_ science.
Jason and Heather
Dan Knauss <dpkn...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Jason and Heather wrote:
> > Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had
> > > about the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> >
> > What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the
> > claim that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> somewhat irrational?
Andrew first used the term. I was hoping he'd define it.
> I think mysticism just admits that there is no pure objectivity or
> rationality possible, but only provisional approximations of each.
> Having made that admission it does not try the fruitless path of
> making an idol out of the "objective" and pursues it only
> provisionally as it assists in a certain context. It is also free
> then to pursue knowledge through means entirely devoid of the
> attempt to gain objectivity--various forms of vision and revelation.
So what happens if my vision contradicts yours? Which one of them is
correct? Is either of them correct? If our revelations do not
coincide, then in what sense are they objective?
> These means can come most easily and directly through day to day
> experience--no weird prophet/monk/jedi/madman weirdness. Love, for
> example, is the beginning and end of knowledge as wisdom: philo-
> sophia.
So a teenager in love is all-wise? What kind of love are we talking
about here? What kind of knowledge? You're making a big and vaguely
defined assertion, but you're not backing it up.
> We moderns tend to repress this truth, but exercise alleviates the
> atrophied spirit. Everyone has some experience, probably many, that
> attests to our mutual, necessary and natural entanglement with the
> complete otherness of a world of knowing and being that we
> recognize but only as a land we forgot we originated from.
You talk purty, but you're not saying anything.
> I use this analogy because objectivity and literality fail at
> communicating the irrational.
Rather. But Andy's claiming that Mysticism _is_ objective, so it
should be communicable by objective means.
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Well, as useful a tool apologetics is, no one was ever argued into belief
> in God. In fact, I'm of the belief that no one whom God doesn't choose to
> believe in Him will. Predestination and all that.
Kinda makes the whole discussion pointless, even though
the discussion was bound to happen. :-)
> Radically unfair idea.
> Oh, well. Fairness was never something I was too fond of, anyhow.
Why would god create souls predestined for hell?
--oTTo--
Most gods would make terrible rationalists
which makes me wonder about carts and horses
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Of course. Mystics[1] and pure rationalists[2] sit on opposite sides of
> the fence. Each is antithesis to the other. The mystic asserts that
> there is existence beyond that which can be experienced through the (IMO)
> culturally over-privileged physical senses. The pure rationalist asserts
> that there is naught indiscernable by his eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and
> hands.
And then there's the jerk who points out that mystical
experiences may real be real *and* explainable, but we
just haven't figured out how yet.
There are documented puzzles in the mystical or ESP realm.
They call it extrasensory but it may be just another sense
that we don't understand. Imagine trying to understand
how a bat navigates in pitch darkness without knowledge
of echo location.
Now you will please excuse me whilst I journey to the center
of a black hole.
--oTTo--
I must be one of them thar cynics
Jason and Heather
> decree:
> >
>
> Well, since it was coming from someone who openly and passionately
> mocks Christianity and things which remind one of it, I was not
> even under the weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
That's a mighty fine assertion you've got there. Got anything to
back it up with?
Jason and Heather
> opinion that the Englightenment has poisoned our thinking, that we
> are now under the carefully constructed illusion that all we seek
> is graspable in some grand gnostic vision by finite Aristotelean
> skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that which is
> unproven is therefore false.
That straw man shore do burn purdy.
That which is logically unproven may be true or may be false. The
real question is why we should accept any given unproven assertion
as true. After all, for each such assertion, there exists at least
one similarly unproven counter-assertion.
Why should I accept any mystic's unproven assertion, and not its
counter-assertion? Why should anyone accept your philosophy on faith
instead of the philosophy of John Do, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones?
What do you have to distinguish your assertions from the infinite
number of other unproven assertions?
> We have deluded ourselves that we, being gods, have no need of
> faith. What a depressing and ostrich-headed notion.
Calling it ostrich-headed implies that those who refuse to accept
your faith are evading some obvious evidence. If it is so obvious,
surely you will have no difficulty expressing it.
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> > Well, since it was coming from someone who openly and passionately
> > mocks Christianity and things which remind one of it, I was not
> > surprised. I think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which
> > we've based substantialism are not something which can be crushed,
> > even under the weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
>
> That's a mighty fine assertion you've got there. Got anything to
> back it up with?
I'd be careful. This man plays with claymores.
--oTTo--
Would Heaven be symetrical?
Kevin P. Neal
Otto Bahn <JGA...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>> Well, as useful a tool apologetics is, no one was ever argued into belief
>> in God. In fact, I'm of the belief that no one whom God doesn't choose to
>> believe in Him will. Predestination and all that.
>Kinda makes the whole discussion pointless, even though
>the discussion was bound to happen. :-)
>> Radically unfair idea.
>> Oh, well. Fairness was never something I was too fond of, anyhow.
>Why would god create souls predestined for hell?
"Justice"?
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Jason and Heather
> > > we've based substantialism are not something which can be crushed,
> > > even under the weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
> >
> > That's a mighty fine assertion you've got there. Got anything to
> > back it up with?
>
> I'd be careful. This man plays with claymores.
Considering the lack of a .mil on the end of his address, I doubt
you're referring to the fragmenting munition. Thanks for the warning,
but I do believe I'm adequately covered in the area of armaments.
Afraid I don't have anything going back more than a century though.
Do you think the Enfield would be sporting?
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> Considering the lack of a .mil on the end of his address, I doubt
> you're referring to the fragmenting munition.
Actually, I was. He left one in my office once. I took
it out back to see if it was live, and damn near blew up
a whole building (I was working in Oklahoma City at the
time).
> Thanks for the warning,
> but I do believe I'm adequately covered in the area of armaments.
> Afraid I don't have anything going back more than a century though.
> Do you think the Enfield would be sporting?
Ah, Enfields, the slant-6's of rifles. Don't know if they
are considered sporting, but they are nostaligic, and still
rather useful in a pinch.
--oTTo--
Jason and Heather
> >
> > : enlightenment. They sure as hell don't reject an unproven
> > : hypothesis.
> >
> > What about an unprovable one?
>
> You're *very* good at this - I've gotten lazy working around a
> bunch of pippeter-pushing molecular biologists....
>
> Speaking for myself *only*
>
> I actually don't care too much for the word (or concept!) "proof" -
> I tend to concentrate on the accumulation of eveidence. I don't
> think there are *many* things I would consider *proved*. I guess I
> differ from many scientists in this respect.
Not at all. The problem here is one of equivocation. There's a
difference between formal proofs, and empirical proofs. When most
scientists speak of "proof", they mean the latter. The former
is confined primarily to formal logic and mathematics, and is not
even always present in the latter.
This starts to get into the philosophy of science, and I highly
recommend that anyone interested in the scope of rationality obtain
a copy of the book "The Myth of the Framework" by Sir Karl Popper.
Jason and Heather
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
>
> : *will* speak when He wishes, but then you say that I must be
> : *listening*. How can I deny God?
>
> You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny
> His existence all you like.
Wonko does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny His existance
all you like.
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~docterm1/x/wonko.htm
Now, why should anyone believe you, and not Geoff Weil?
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone.
He has at times, according to your book.
But I get your drift.
I guess I'm returning to my point about humans claiming
to understand god. Knowing him is one thing,
understanding him another.
--oTTo--
My book says don't forget about enthalpy when analyzing
systems with nozzles
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
>
> : Yeah, but *he* called it a disease, not *me* (whine...). I just say I
> : don't feel very "sick".
>
> The sick rarely do.
I beg to differ. Can I have a dollar please?
> Besides, why should you base the validity of what you
> believe on "feelings?" Where's the materialist explanation for that? I
> mean, with that sort of philosophy, I could become a Unitarian Universalist
> tomorrow, because I ate the wrong sort of turnip.
I think she was looking for empirical evidence.
I could be wrong.
> So, what's chance? Where does it come from? Is it governable by the Laws
> of Thermodynamics? Where does chance come from in a material universe?
We need a Steven Hawking-type to do this justice.
> What about Chaos Theory? Explain randomness to me in such a way as that
> it's not merely a band-aid to allow for free will in an otherwise
> deterministic materialist universe.
Well, randomness does apply to inanimate objects,
such as which atom is going to undergo spontaneous
radioactive decay next? It is, of course, possible
that random events only *appear* random, the underlying
cause either unknown as of yet or unknowable to mere
humans.
> : Other elements than chance and "chemistry"
> : may be involved, too - I certainly wouldn't deny that offhand. But if I
> : was somehow to *know* my Love was "merely" chemistry and chance, I
> : wouldn't love any less. Is that really so hard to understand?
>
> Sure is. You see, I don't see anything particularly special or privileged
> about endothermic reactions coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty
> Principle (not that I really know what the HUC is, but that's not the
> point). What causes it to rise above everything else and make it love?
Our current state of understanding conciousness reminds
me of how the ancients viewed things like eclipses and
comets and other unknown things.
> What does it mean to experience love? Why should we value it? Why should
> we value anything? Which combinations of biochemistry and Chance(tm) are
> better than the others?
You're lookin' at him. That's right, --oTTo-- is
better. I'm perfectly symetrical.
> : > In fact, in the materialist world, free will is mere illusion. Ro-bot-ic.
> : > We are purely the product of our atomic forces.
I don't buy that.
> You see, I think that free will cannot exist without God.
[Note to self: something intelligent was said]
> [1] Doctrine of the Swerve: The Epicureans were atomists, a group of sort
> of proto-materialists. However, to account for the fact that they didn't
> want to be determinsists (since they had a moral philosophy), they came up
> with the Doctrine of the Swerve. Basically, it states that atoms normally
> move on completely predictable courses, but that, every so often, one just
> goes haywire and swerves off course at a random vector. Voila, free will.
> (Yeah, right.)
Atoms don't do that, but electrons do.
And they go through both slits till you decide to observe them.
Interesting. Very interesting.
Not that I think inaminate objects have free will, or
that randomness and free will are linked (free will is
one of those things that appears random to the observer
but is not necessarily random to the observee).
--oTTo--
Flipping coins...
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Fri, 23 May 1997 02:29:29 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wanted to share:
:back to the lab...
When I first read this, I thought it said "tub."
I'm sorry to disrupt this deeply important religious thread with my evil
thoughts.
As you were.
Jaffo
--
"Mises was right, and Lenin was wrong. That is the great lesson
of the 20th century." -- Yuri N. Maltsev, Former Soviet Economist
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 27 May 1997 12:36:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
to share:
:Wonko does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny His existance
:all you like.
:
: http://webpages.marshall.edu/~docterm1/x/wonko.htm
:
:Now, why should anyone believe you, and not Geoff Weil?
<Jaffo waves his hand in the air, twisting eagerly in his desk.>
I know! I know! It's FAITH, right? I WIN!
Jaffo
P.S.
Also, God has better web pages.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 23 May 1997 06:38:50 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
wanted to share:
:In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
:
:: But your God _cannot_ be denied, can He? You talk as if God *will* speak
:: when He wishes, but then you say that I must be *listening*. How can I
:: deny God?
:
:You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny His
:existence all you like.
At least until you die...
Then you'll have SO MUCH PROOF IT'S ALL OVER YOUR SCREEN!
Jaffo
P.S. The best thing about being Christian is that if you're wrong, no one
will be there to tell you. And if you're right, you get to stand there and
GLOAT for all eternity!
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Tue, 27 May 1997 18:26:49 -0400, Otto Bahn wanted to
share:
:Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
:
:> You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone.
:
:He has at times, according to your book.
:But I get your drift.
Here's my problem, and I'm going to regret starting this. How do we know the
Bible has not been alterted, hijacked, misinterpreted, or subject to some
Englishman's bad grammar?
Jaffo
Jason and Heather
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
> The best thing about being Christian is that if you're wrong, no one
> will be there to tell you.
Except Allah. Or Wonko. Or...
Jason and Heather
Kevin P. Neal <kpn...@pobox.com> wrote:
> stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) wrote:
> >
> > That which is logically unproven may be true or may be false. The
> > real question is why we should accept any given unproven assertion
> > as true. After all, for each such assertion, there exists at least
> > one similarly unproven counter-assertion.
>
That's no compromise. I don't know.
However, even assuming that this is reason enough to accept something
on faith just to make myself feel better about my lack of empirically
gathered evidence, the question still remains: _Which_ of the
thousands - if not billions - of assertions floating around out there
should I accept on faith? And why?
Otto Bahn
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Preponderance of evidence? You'd do well as a jurist for a civil trial.
> I also believe what I believe based on an accumulation of evidence. I
> simply see it as that I accept more forms of evidence than you would.
It could also be that she has not experienced the types
of evidence that you have. If she had, things may or may
not be different.
The universality of religious experiences means something.
I'm just not sure what it is.
--oTTo--
I got some wiccans in a basket
Kevin P. Neal
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>Sure is. You see, I don't see anything particularly special or privileged
>about endothermic reactions coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty
>Principle (not that I really know what the HUC is, but that's not the
>point). What causes it to rise above everything else and make it love?
Well, it was disproved.
They found a counter-example to the principle, which means that the
statement is not _always_ true. Since part of the statement is to say
that it is _always_ true, then the statement is false.
What we call "science" isn't "truth", it's only today's closest
approximation of it (we like to think).
Kevin P. Neal
stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) wrote:
>That which is logically unproven may be true or may be false. The
>real question is why we should accept any given unproven assertion
>as true. After all, for each such assertion, there exists at least
>one similarly unproven counter-assertion.
How about a compromise? Just say "I don't know, maybe".
Eddie Saxe
In article <33ac8be7...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>P.S. The best thing about being Christian is that if you're wrong, no one
>will be there to tell you. And if you're right, you get to stand there and
>GLOAT for all eternity!
Pascal couldn't have said it better himself.
Eddie
--
They can have my latte when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Eddie Saxe
In article <33ae8cdf...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
>Here's my problem, and I'm going to regret starting this. How do we know the
>Bible has not been alterted, hijacked, misinterpreted, or subject to some
>Englishman's bad grammar?
Oh, that's easy. Check it against God's digital signature.
Otto Bahn
Kevin P. Neal wrote:
> They found a counter-example to the principle, which means that the
> statement is not _always_ true. Since part of the statement is to say
> that it is _always_ true, then the statement is false.
>
> What we call "science" isn't "truth", it's only today's closest
> approximation of it (we like to think).
What we're really talking about here is PHYSICS.
It's a MODEL of the universe. Science does not claim
to be REALITY despite what some scientists may inadvertently
imply out of their casual or ignorant stances.
The model is NOT PERFECT. It does not claim to be--
that's why they are still WORKING ON IT.
The best example is GRAVITY. Newton thought he had
it all figured out. Einstein IMPROVED our understanding
of it. There is some EVIDENCE that there may be more
to it than Einstein THOUGHT. Even still, for most
applications, Newton's model WORKS GREAT, so long as
you understand it's limitations.
We currently have no reason to believe that god, or
anyone else, is TINKERING with the laws of physics.
I barely qualify myself, but this thread in general
is not displaying the experitise required to prove
JACK DIDDLEY SQUAT.
IN A VAN.
DOWN BY THE RIVER.
--oTTo--
Are we motivated yet?
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> > How about a compromise? Just say "I don't know, maybe".
>
> That's no compromise. I don't know.
>
> However, even assuming that this is reason enough to accept something
> on faith just to make myself feel better about my lack of empirically
> gathered evidence, the question still remains: _Which_ of the
> thousands - if not billions - of assertions floating around out there
> should I accept on faith? And why?
Well, like duh, of course, you are correct sir.
The only assertions based on faith that you should
accept are the ones that hit you over the head and
pass the police baton test. There is no need for
you to confirm, or deny, other people's assertions.
I think you (all) are wasting your time.
I came to this conclusion as I rolled out of bed
late for work after having stayed up too late.
Therefore, I am right. People late for work only
deal with the essentials, cutting away uneccesary
tasks like Occam's Razor with no time to shave.
--oTTo--
I might change my mind later
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> Normally I don't. Unless those people start claiming that their
> assertions are _objective_ in nature. Once they make that claim,
> then the burden of proof is on them. And I fully intend to make
> sure they bear it.
YM: "Grin and bear it."
Style counts. In hexadecimal, no less.
Though there is always the danger of someone
going octal on you.
--oTTo--
12 short of dozen today
Jason and Heather
Otto Bahn <hig...@juno.com> wrote:
> Jason and Heather wrote:
> >
> > > How about a compromise? Just say "I don't know, maybe".
> >
> > That's no compromise. I don't know.
> >
> > However, even assuming that this is reason enough to accept
> > something on faith just to make myself feel better about my lack
> > of empirically gathered evidence, the question still remains:
> > _Which_ of the thousands - if not billions - of assertions
> > floating around out there should I accept on faith? And why?
>
> Well, like duh, of course, you are correct sir.
>
> The only assertions based on faith that you should accept are the
> ones that hit you over the head and pass the police baton test.
> There is no need for you to confirm, or deny, other people's
> assertions.
Normally I don't. Unless those people start claiming that their
assertions are _objective_ in nature. Once they make that claim,
then the burden of proof is on them. And I fully intend to make
sure they bear it.
jason
Richard Crew
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
:
: Here's my problem, and I'm going to regret starting this. How do we know the
: Bible has not been alterted, hijacked, misinterpreted, or subject to some
: Englishman's bad grammar?
: Jaffo
:
Why, this is elementary, my dear Watson. Augustine explained long ago that
all mistranslations, misinterpretations, etc., are *themselves* of
Divine inspiration.
Remember, the point is to be correct _by_definition_.
--Rich
--
###########################################################################
#
# IF YOU PUT ANYTHING HERE IT WILL GO AWAY
#
Richard Crew
: So, what's chance? Where does it come from? Is it governable by the Laws
: of Thermodynamics? Where does chance come from in a material universe?
: it's not merely a band-aid to allow for free will in an otherwise
: deterministic materialist universe.
Yes, what about Chaos Theory?
One could say that the point of "Mathematical Chaos Theory" is to give
examples of deterministic systems that exhibit what looks like utterly
random behavior. And on the hand, one could give quantum systems as an
example of non-deterministic systems which, at least macroscopically,
appear to be deterministic. Just in case you thought you knew what you
were talking about when you speak of "determinism" or "chance."
As for "random" -- this is explained in elementary courses in probability
theory. If you want to know what it means, you might consider taking one.
: If you're not determinists, what then? Epicureans, believing in the
: Doctrine of the Swerve[1]?
Well, one could be most anything (e.g. a Leibnizian). Actually, I always
*liked* the doctrine of the Swerve. It's as if all those little atoms
just got *fed up* after a while.
<snippety snippety>
: The present experience is the closest we can come in this world to
: touching eternity. It is what it is most like it. It is also how
: God experiences all of what we refer to as Time, except He does it
: all at once, since He exists outside of Time. The Past, Present,
: and Future are all Present at once for Him.
If God exists outside of Time, then one could with equal justification
say that *nothing* is Present for Him. This argument really doesn't do
what you think it does. It certainly doesn't reconcile free will and
predestination (or determinism).
Richard Crew
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
:
: P.S. The best thing about being Christian is that if you're wrong, no one
: will be there to tell you. And if you're right, you get to stand there and
: GLOAT for all eternity!
Ah, yes, GLOATING. That most *Christian* of attitudes.
Michael Straight
On 24 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > On 23 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> > > Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> > > with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> > > loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> > > a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> > > appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
> >
> > Actually, the people I'm thinking of (except maybe in the last
> > sentence) are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out
> > that what generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not
> > really boil down to "baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you
> > suggest. There's a truly beautiful proof of this that I can't fit
> > in the margin here (that is to say, I'd need to re-read a couple of
> > books to really talk about this).
>
> Um, I _am_ a critical rationalist. :)
Are you sure "critical rationalism" is the same as "critical realism"?
Compare and see! Here's an overview summarized from two books I highly
recommend, _Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science
and Religion_ by Ian G. Barbour and _Intimations of Reality: Critical
Realism in Science and Religion_ by Arthur Peacocke (stuff you probably
already know included for the viewers at home):
In the 50's and earlier, the objectivity of science was defended by three
claims: (1) that science uses data that can be described objectively
without any theoretical assumptions, (2) theories are verified or
falsified by comparing them with data, therefore, (3) the choice between
theories is based on rational, objective criteria.
In the 60's, these three assertions were challenged by people who argued
that (1) all data are theory-laden, (2) data which conflicts with an
accepted theory is usually laid aside as an anomaly, (3) there are no
general, objective criteria for choosing between rival theories -- the
criteria themselves rely on the same network of theories.
These critiques were extended by a very influential book, _The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ by Thomas Kuhn (whom I can't hope to
do justice to in a few sentences) which argued that science is directed by
"paradigms" which include a network of theories about an area of study as
well as the accepted methods for generating new knowledge in that area.
Kuhn argued that since the paradigm is what tells you what data are
relevant and how you should evaluate them, you can't use logical argument
to choose between paradigms, and that while you can give good reasons for
your choice, a change in paradigms is really more like a "conversion" or a
"gestalt switch."
In the 70's, some philosophers of science went so far as to argue that
scientific knowledge is shaped as much or more by sociological forces as
the phenomena that science is trying to study. "Scientific knowledge
offers an account of the physical world which is mediated through
available cultural resources...The physical world could be analyzed
perfectly adequately by means of language and presuppositions quite
different from those employed in the modern scientific community. There
is, therefore, nothing in the physical world which uniquely determines the
conclusions of that community" (M. Mulkay, quoted by Peacocke, p. 20).
These may be the folks you were referring to above as "subjectivists."
Critical realism [finally] takes seriously some of Kuhn's insights and
acknowledges we can't go back to the "naive realism" of the 50's, but
offers a qualified argument that science is describing an objective
reality outside of itself. Barbour formulates it this way:
First, all data are theory-laden, but rival theories are not
incommensurable...Second, comprehensive theories are highly resistant
to falsification, but observation does exert some control over them...
Third, there are no rules for choice between research programmes, but
there are independent criteria of assessment (Barbour, pp 113-115).
Barbour and Peacocke both argue that one consequence of this qualified
description of science is the realization that, as ways of knowing the
universe, science and religion differ in degree of objectivity, rather
than in kind.
Even within science, there are degrees of resistance to falsification,
with paradigms and metaphysical assumptions most resistant but by no
means totally invulnerable in the long run to cumulative empirical
evidence. I would assign scientific paradigms a position near the
middle of the 'falsifiability' spectrum - not at the extreme of
'objectivity'...Religious paradigms I would assign towards the
'subjective' or 'unfalsifiable' end of the spectrum, because of the
influence of interpretation on experience - but not at the extreme of
'subjectivity' (Barbour, pp. 132-133).
The following longer excerpt from Peacocke particularly addresses some of
the original issues raised by Jaffo:
According to the thesis already elaborated, referring successfully to an
entity, say an electron, can be achieved by affirming that one is
referring to that which causes (say) this galvanometer needle to be
deflected. And this can be achieved without knowing what electrons are
"in themselves." Given the parallels between the use of models and
metaphors in scientific and theological language, it seems to me to be
equally legitimate to affirm that God can be "that which causes this
particular experience now (or in the past) in me (or in others)." The
more recurrent and widespread the experiences in question, the more
secure the reference, and so the reality, of that which is referred to.
However, the dissemination of such recognition of the validity of the
God-reference in individuals experience can only be slow, with much
sifting and attestation, because any one individual's claim can always
be contested.
Hence the kind of critical theological realism we have been developing
places at the center past and present religious experience, the
continuous community, and an interpretive tradition. Reference is
grounded in the seminal, initiating experiences of individuals and
communities when references to God were first made in the "introducing
events" -- and the community then, and continuously since, provides the
links of referential usage and repeated and new experiences that enable
us today to refer to what the initiators referred to, even though we may
have revised our models through continuous reinterpretation
("development of doctrine"). In that process of initiation and
reinterpretation, some individuals and communities will command assent,
acquire authority, more than others -- by virtue of their presence at
the initial, introducing, referring event(s) or experience, by virtue
of their intellectual preeminence in the interpretive process of more
widespread and universal experiences through the ages, and by virtue of
the men and women they were and are. Through such transmitted
experience, all can participate in the special, definitive experiences
of God of the few and, once these have been made communally accessible,
they become available as a resource for all. This general assent
continues only if current experiences of at least some of the members
of the community continue to be congruent with the earlier ones
(Peacocke, pp. 46-47).
In other words, religious experience (including mysticism) is not judged
in a vacuum but as part of a continuing community that is grounded in some
extraordinary historical events (for Christians, the exodus from Egypt,
the life of Jesus, the proclamation of his resurrection by the early
church). Mystics are judged by the quality of their lives, by how well
their experience fits in with other religious experiences and with these
seminal events.
This process, while different from science in some ways, also has many
similarities with the way the scientific community functions and is really
only more subjective by degree rather than by being in some separate
"subjective" category from "objective" science.
> Have been for a long time, but didn't find out the formal title for
> my philosophy until someone said "Y'know, you sound like Karl
> Popper", and I went "Karl who?" and proceeded to buy and devour a
> bunch of his books. I consider it a point of pride that I came to
> so many of the same conclusions he did independently.
Barbour responds to Popper in a few places. Popper seems to want to
defend a more traditional view of science's objectivity and
falsifiability. Barbour says, "Popper's view has in turn received
considerable criticism. Discordant data do not always falsify a theory.
One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a 'crucial
experiment'; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one
cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the
deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations
is always tested together."
I wrote about Plantinga:
> > I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
> > Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his
> > beliefs. He would argue that he has good reasons for believing in
> > God but that those reasons are not the sort of thing that you can
> > turn into a "proof."
Jason replied:
> Here we get into the question of what constitutes a "good" reason.
> If your reasons cannot be formulated as a logical proof, by what
> standard can they said to be good?
>
> (And yes, that is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. I just
> want to see if you do, or how you will state it.)
I don't know exactly how Plantinga would define a "good" reason, but I can
give some examples. We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like
it does today. There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't
suddenly start attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like
since the universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Barbour lists some of the data that can be explained by religious models:
feelings of awe and reverence, experiences of mystical unity, moral
obligation, reorientation and reconciliation, experience of God in
personal relationships, key historical events, order and creativity in the
world. Barbour writes, "I am not claiming that moral and religious
experience or particular historical events can constitute a proof for the
existence of a personal God. I am only saying that it is reasonable to
interpret them theistically and that it makes a difference whether one
does so or not" (Barbour, pp 56-57).
I asked:
> > What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Jason replied:
> Independent of the mind. Verifiable.
>
> Philosophies are ideas, so they can't exactly be independent of the
> mind. However, philosophy isn't just a mental game. It can be based
> on verifiable premises, and a philosophy can be tested by observing
> whether its application yields desirable results.
>
> Philosophy practiced in this way has a lot of similarities to a
> science, and it's no coincidence that critical rationalism deals
> quite a lot with the philosophy _of_ science.
I would really recommend that you at least look at Barbour's book, which
is a more thorough treatment of these ideas. My impression is that your
formulation is still somewhat naive (and I don't mean that in the
condescending sense, but as a historical category) which might not bear up
to the critiques of Kuhn and others. I've about reached the limit of my
understanding of this topic in this post. I'd have to re-read Kuhn and
some other things to really try to pick at your formulation of
"verifiable" and how it compares with religion in terms of objectivity.
If you've read this far, Michael Straight thinks you deserve a cookie.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Michael Straight
On 27 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> However, even assuming that this is reason enough to accept something
> on faith just to make myself feel better about my lack of empirically
> gathered evidence, the question still remains: _Which_ of the
> thousands - if not billions - of assertions floating around out there
> should I accept on faith? And why?
I can't tell you that. But I can tell you why I choose the faith that
I've accepted.
I was born and raised in the Christian community and have had the chance
to get to know the records of the events that spawned it (including, but
not limited to the Bible) and I've gotten to know the community (the
Church) that has continually borne witness to these events and which has
sifted through and tried to incorporate and make sense of humanity's
continuing experience of God. And I've come to trust the witness of the
Church, not because of some "proof" but because I've gotten to know the
Church and the God it testifies to, much as I trust my wife because I've
gotten to know her.
Furthermore, I've found that the Christian faith has great explanatory
power for the existence and order of the world, for the existence of evil
and the phenomena of repentance, love, and reconciliation.
I can't prove to you that God exists or that in Jesus he has lived among
us as one of us, or that he came back from the dead, or that his death and
resurrection changed the world. But I believe these things, and I think I
have good reasons to believe them. Better reasons than any I've heard not
to believe them. Better reasons than the folks who believed that they
could join Hale-Bopp by committing suicide.
See also the "Critical Realism" thread for more about basis for beliefs.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 28 May 1997 21:26:11 GMT, Richard Crew wanted to
share:
:Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
: :
: : P.S. The best thing about being Christian is that if you're wrong, no one
: : will be there to tell you. And if you're right, you get to stand there and
: : GLOAT for all eternity!
:
: Ah, yes, GLOATING. That most *Christian* of attitudes.
Hey now, don't turn my joke into something NASTY please!
Jaffo
--
"I'm such an idiot. I should have posted about SPITTING, not chicken."
-- KMM
Otto Bahn
Jaffo wrote:
> : Ah, yes, GLOATING. That most *Christian* of attitudes.
>
> Hey now, don't turn my joke into something NASTY please!
Do not judge a religion by its followers,
possible exception to Kibology.
--OttO--
Hardhats are just an excuse throw rocks off buildings
Otto Bahn
Richard Crew wrote:
[good post snipped]
Didn't have time yesterday, and I meant to send
a quick post pointing out that determinism does
not necessarily imply that conciousness can be
described by merely modeling the biochemical
reactions, electric fields, etc. The incredible
complexity that goes into a simple fart is comparable
to predicting the weather. And you can't predict
which stimuli are going to reach the brain, and
which will be filtered out or acted upon.
The physical processes are influenced by the resulting
conciousness as much as vice versa. If I decide to
do a headstand, you will have to adjust your equations
accordingly.
--oTTo--
But it's easier just to turn the monitor upside down
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> I can't prove to you that God exists or that in Jesus he has lived among
> us as one of us, or that he came back from the dead, or that his death and
> resurrection changed the world. But I believe these things, and I think I
> have good reasons to believe them. Better reasons than any I've heard not
> to believe them. Better reasons than the folks who believed that they
> could join Hale-Bopp by committing suicide.
I do understand the criticism of science being completely
objective, but religious arguments strike me as infinitely
more subjective. To offer a critique of objective science
and then mention good reason to believe religious evidence
somewhat puzzles me.
This is not a criticism of why you believe, more of a wonder
why...
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
It goes, without saying, that science cannot be perfectly
objective. But I'd be careful before StanleyFishing it
too much. The Math involved is relatively objective; it's
the assumptions for which equations to use, and when, that
we can question.
The subjectivity of science is countered by our faith in
bridges, airplanes, this very medium we communicate through.
Science passes the police baton test with great regularity.
It is the cutting edge of science, especially astrophysics
and quantum physics (finally colliding, good thing to)
where you have more of a point.
> In the 70's, some philosophers of science went so far as to argue that
> scientific knowledge is shaped as much or more by sociological forces as
> the phenomena that science is trying to study. "Scientific knowledge
> offers an account of the physical world which is mediated through
> available cultural resources...The physical world could be analyzed
> perfectly adequately by means of language and presuppositions quite
> different from those employed in the modern scientific community. There
> is, therefore, nothing in the physical world which uniquely determines the
> conclusions of that community" (M. Mulkay, quoted by Peacocke, p. 20).
> These may be the folks you were referring to above as "subjectivists."
To what extent this matters I'm not sure I care. Different
models would probably turn out to be equivalent, much as
Schroedinger's equations are compatible with quantum theory
after all.
> One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a 'crucial
> experiment'; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one
> cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the
> deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations
> is always tested together."
This strikes me more as a potential pitfall and not
a problem with science itself.
> I don't know exactly how Plantinga would define a "good" reason, but I can
> give some examples. We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like
> it does today. There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't
> suddenly start attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like
> since the universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
> reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Recent memory is more like all of recorded history,
and there's good evidence electrons behaved similarly
during the Cetacious period, during the formation of
the earth 4.5 billion years, all the way back to just
after the big b-b-b-b-b-b-explosion.
--oTTo--
Louis Nick III
On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
> >We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like it does today.
> >There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
> >attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
> >universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
> >reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Just as you can only shakily apply logic to culture, one can only shakily
apply logic to the universe. The universe escapes all models, at some
point.
> Really? That's it? You mean it's sheer luck that everything based on
> like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
> the racetrack!
For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion years,
and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable, incomprehensible--to
humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and such.
> At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
> If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
Kibo.
> If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
> thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
It changes in time. And if there is a violation of conservation of
energy, then the answer is yes.
> And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
Why not? David Hume says so.
--
"With sufficient imagination a man could write a whole series of versions
of his life; it would form a union of sets in which the facts would be the
only elements in common." -- Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_
=== Louis Nick III sn...@u.washington.edu alt.religion.louis-nick ===
Jim Klein
In <Pine.A41.3.95.970528...@login2.isis.unc.edu>
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like it does today.
>There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
>attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
>universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
>reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Really? That's it? You mean it's sheer luck that everything based on
like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
the racetrack!
At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
jk
Eddie Saxe
In article <5mlm8e$8...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Pine.A41.3.95.970528...@login2.isis.unc.edu>
>Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
>>There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
>>attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
>>universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
>>reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
>
>like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
>the racetrack!
Wasn't there a hiring spike of chaos mathematicians by some of the larger
stockbrokerage firms a little while back?
>At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
Yep. So far though, this has been only been observed with very small things.
See alt.sex.bondage.particle.physics.
>If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
Ellen DeGeneres' sex life, for one.
>If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
>thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
>
>And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
Indeed. Welcome to the Real World.
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970529...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion
>years, and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable,
>incomprehensible--to humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and
>such.
If this is true, then there is NO connection between our knowledge and
actual reality. And if THAT is the case, why eat steak for dinner,
rather than rocks? After all, rocks are easier to come by.
And you can't just plead to "high probabilities" because the very idea
of probability necessitates a connection between our knowledge and
independent reality. I.e., if there were NO causal connection, then a
high probability would be no different than a low probability, and we'd
be using Mohs' Scale for a menu.
jk
Jim Klein
In <5mlp1l$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com> sa...@auberon.engr.sgi.com (Eddie Saxe)
writes:
>>At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
>
>Yep. So far though, this has been only been observed with very small
>things.
OBSERVED??? That's remarkable! Who observed it, and what exactly did
they observe? I think you probably mean "detected", and I have a hunch
that you're talking about "non-caused events", events that are
"inherently random", a tall order in itself.
But if something was actually "observed" (that's a human function) to
actually be two mutually exclusive items at once, I'd really appreciate
the pointer. Thanks.
>>If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
>
>Ellen DeGeneres' sex life, for one.
Which one---the one it is, or the one that's distinct from that?
jk
Michael Straight
I think the "Critical Realism" post boils down to this: religion may be
more subjective than science, but it is not completely subjective, nor is
science completely objective. I think Kuhn, Peacocke, Barbour, and
others have convincingly argued that religion is not "infinitely more"
subjective than science.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Louis Nick III
On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
>
> >For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion
> >years, and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable,
> >incomprehensible--to humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and
> >such.
>
> If this is true, then there is NO connection between our knowledge and
> actual reality.
Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Humanity would change, too,
and if it wasn't wiped out by some fundmental law's change. Science's
ability to predict is often a measure of how acceptable and accepted it
is. But theories of cosmology aren't advanced enough to account for
phenomenon such as that I described. A Supernova that went off say 19
years ago, at a distance of 6pc, perhaps, would wipe out humanity in about
six months, thus ridding from the universe all our knowledge (leaving only
cockroaches and the internet), would it wipe out actual reality? Arguably
yes, but you'd say no. Yet you seem to have a problem with the reverse.
Unless you believe that we KNOW everything about "actual reality,"
obviously nature has plenty of curves to throw us. And we can't predict
them. So despite any perceived connections between "actual reality" (a
questionable notion at best) and knowledge are temporary at best, yourown
hang-ups at worst.