Einstein v. Ayn Rand
Real Gone Daddy
> It" (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949) . . .
> --
>
>>"But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one
exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles
and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the
many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of
sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and
outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and
that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I
have received and am still receiving..."<<
One person wrote in message news:63e29e5f.02051
50856.2...@posting.google.com...
> Amazing....I always saw one perspective of Einstein's
> personality...this new image is absolutely great.
> Faiza
Right. One can hardly help but be moved by it.
Little wonder that Einstein was named Time Magazine's "Man of the
Century" even if some people may sincerely feel it should have been
Elvis?
Another person wrote in message news:54ff9912.0205151328
.5031d09b@posting.google.com...
>
> This is a very interesting passage about the the mental make up of
> einstein. He thanks his fellow men for what they had done to him... he
> says he knows he exist for them. He lives AND performs only out of
> gratitude. This is kind of wierd since he then goes on and talks about
> distancing himself from all others. This I find extremely
> contradicary. Why is he so confused.
Quite a paradox, isn't it? Let's look again at what he says . . .
"But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one
exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles
and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent . . . "
Now look at Ayn Rand's line from *The Fountainhead* as given to Howard
Roark in his summation for the jury . . .
"I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for
others"
Put yourself in the jury box--as Average Joe. Was that a wise way to
get the point of one's independence and integrity across to a jury
that shall decide your fate?
Consider that Reason is at the foundation of this Objectivist
philosophy. Consider that Reason combined with an enlightened
self-interest can contemplate expedience without falling to
compromise. May I suggest that Reason *must* contemplate expedience?
According to those who were most intimate with her, Ayn Rand was not
always, in every case, reasonable. There were times when her
self-interest or even, it may be, her vanity was there to overcome her
reason. One of those instances was when she permitted Isabel Paterson
to use her ideas without credit. Was Ayn Rand so needy at that point
in her life to see her own words in print in a big way that she was
willing to sacrifice the credit due her? Was this the same vanity
which led Howard Roark to the same thing when he designed Courtlandt
Homes without credit?
Let us consider that Objectivist Enlightened Egoism is never vain.
According to Barbara Branden, when Rand attended the motion picture
premiere only to discover that the pivotal line, "I wished to come
here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others" had been
cut, she felt all her work, all her resistance to efforts to change
other elements of the script had been in vain. The line immediately
preceding the cut was left in as follows . .
'I came here to say that I do not recognize any man's right to one
minute of my life . . ."
Next there is the cut. After the cut, the script sticks right to the
following text of the novel . . .
"It had to be said. [But what "had to be said" was now missing.] The
world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing."
Next the script departs from the monologue in the novel, as in the
film, Roark goes on to say . . .
"In the name of every man of independence still left in the world, I
came to state my terms . . .my terms are a man's right to exist for
his own sake."
That was Roark's last word before he takes his seat.
It is interesting to compare the line given Roark by Ayn Rand . . .
"I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for
others"
. . . with the line that Hollywood was willing to leave standing in
its place . . .
"My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake."
You might note that in one sense, both lines say the same thing, yet
in another they don't. It seems perfectly fine to speak within a
positive syntax of a man's right to "exist for his own sake" but when
it is changed to the negative, to the reverse side of that coin of
phraseology to "I am a man who does not exist for others" then you
have a statement that King Vidor and the powers that be at Warners, or
perhaps Gary Cooper himself did not feel comfortable with in the least
way.
Clearly both statements are not identical--and why? Because a man can
indeed exist both for himself and for others. Einstein above shows us
how. There is no paradox. It might even be said that the more a man
independently exists for himself, then the more he truly is existing
for others to show them that sort of integrity, that they might
admiringly smile to see it, learn it, and live it, too. Then I may
smile to know that I have added to the well-being of another by
showing him that he needn't be a slave to the thoughts and
expectations, the dogmatism, the slavish accepted protocols of
others.
So who can truly say that the two forms of existence are in any way
mutually exclusive?
To be sure, a statement like, "I am a man who does not exist for
others" just doesn't sound "very nice" because it can be taken in the
wrong way as holding a form of self-indulgence which is really not the
"enlightened egoism" that Ayn Rand was here to convey in her best
expressions of it.
When taken the wrong way, the line, "I am a man who does not exist for
others" slams back on the self so hard that it immediately gives the
speaker a black eye. Why? Because *he* is "others" to others. The
self is not a unity, it is a reflexive entity, it is an *I* and a
*Me*. In each of us there is an "other".
To say, "I am a man who does not exist for others" is a damned lie and
everybody knows it no sooner than it is said. People are immediately
thinking, "Oh, he is wrong." The minute a man says that *to* others
he is saying it for sake of others, if only to please that "other" in
himself and if he really meant it, he would keep it to himself, or he
would tell it to himself in a closet same as he tells it to others.
He would say, "I do not exist for anybody, least of all my own damn
self." Hearing him say that, we might conclude the man is some sort
of "saint" or more likely a madman.
The problem with saying, "I am a man who does not exist for others" is
that it bears a meaning which is to say absolutely and imperatively,
"I am a man who never exists for others." That would be against the
freedom in Objectivist philosophy, which would be to say, "I am a man
who does not exist strictly for others." Now the edge of the
absolute, the imperative is off the statement. Some latitude is
allowed the speaker to get the idea across that the choice is up to
him to decide about for whom he exists both now and later--he hasn't
locked himself into an absolute.
Ayn Rand showed how much she existed for Nathaniel Branden when she
found out about his affair with that gorgeous new flame of his. She
couldn't handle the fact that Branden did not exist exclusively for
her. She never forgave him, and that doesn't just speak of "existing
for others" it comes right out and screams it.
The syntax of the absolute imperative in "I am a man who does not
exist for others" is the Ebenezer Scrooge syntax that would be the
picture of a person who has made himself prisoner to his own policies
and vanities. I would suggest that the philosophy that Ayn Rand
brought into the world can stand separate from whatever faults her own
all too human vanity and treasons against reason stood to inject into
it.
The essential elements of Ayn Rand's philosophy stand as her great
work of art, and it should not be permitted to suffer from the few bad
strokes she put to it here and there. The whole has a beauty that
reveals the bad strokes for what they are, that they might be noted
for what they are and noted well, since they cannot be removed, but
can only, as I say, be known for what they are--bad strokes.
If a statement can easily suffer from an erring interpretation then
the statement is not serving the true purpose of the speaker. If it
was King Vidor or Gary Cooper, the screen's "Howard Roark" (it may be
that Rand wrote those lines--one would have to see her screenplay) who
decided that "My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake"
more perfectly served the meaning of, "I am a man who does not exist
for others" and despite Ayn Rand's disappointment, I'd be inclined to
think that her editor(s) in this case served her cause better than she
would have done, herself.
And *that* is why we do indeed live in a world where there are others
who whether we like it or not, *exist for us* as our editors, and our
audience. And where would the ideas of Ayn Rand be without that
audience of "others" for whom she gave her whole existence in her art
and philosophy? I can tell you that she existed for me! I'd have
found it a much poorer existence without her.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"Ayn Rand told us that she would blow up the Warner Brothers lot if we
changed one word of her script, and we believed her. Even Jack Warner
believed her." -- Henry Blanke
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." -- Albert Einstein
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
"I like Vincent because, like me, he has the habit of alienating
almost everyone he meets. --Toulouse Lautrec
Mike Purcell
interpretation of Einstein's words without deeper reflection. We are
all obligated to other people both past and present for what they have
done for us whether intentional or not, known or unknown. Sympathy is
a requirement for meaningful interaction with other people and
happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without regards
to other people could achieved it. Existing for yourself is a weak
goal at best, one easily and commonly obtained, while existing for
others is a moral objective. The paradox is that people are
individuals and in order to work towards the common good self
sacrifice is needed and a distancing from individualism. I suggest
that reason must contemplate compromise, not expedience, and that the
world is perishing from lack of self-sacrifice. You have a very
self-satisfying idea of integrity.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock
Real Gone Daddy
How droll.
It's like reading the cocktail party conversaion of Rand's "Toohey"
in *Fonntainhead* and Toohey is of course her cardboard Voo-Doo doll
pin-cushion, the character she uses to espouse every value she hates.
The only trouble with "Toohey" is that he admits things about himself
and his own views that nobody who truly represented that viewpoint
would ever have the perspicacity or the honesty to admit.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Sympathy is a requirement for meaningful interaction with other
> people
Certainly not. Peace negotiations between enemies do in no way
require sympathy but are in no way meaningless.
> and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
> regards to other people could achieved it.
No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
> Existing for yourself is a weak goal at best, one easily and
> commonly obtained, while existing for others is a moral objective.
You may also like to exist for others without any moral.
> The paradox is that people are individuals and in order to work
> towards the common good self sacrifice is needed and a distancing
> from individualism.
It is not. People can cooperate very well based on pure self-interest.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Real Gone Daddy
> Real Gone Daddy wrote:
> [snip}
> Nothing.
Who netcopped my news-server? Who is the low, crawling, cowardly worm
that is such a sissy as to pull something like that?
Any idea, CarbUncle Alphonso?
hanson
> interpretation of Einstein's words without deeper reflection.
[hanson]
Is what follows below attributed to Einstein?
If yes, then it is classical, pathetic, quasi political-moralistic-religo-
socio drivel one sees so very often from people who do nothing but
coughing, barking and farting, when stepping outside their field of
expertise.
Einstein was no exception. He was actually full of it.
That is excusable. What is not excusable is the behavior of their
disciples who lap up every drop of such drivel, unconditionally
and continue to promulgate it, hoping that someone will point out
a sliver of elusive wisdom therein.
[Mike]
> We are
> all obligated to other people both past and present for what they have
> done for us whether intentional or not, known or unknown. Sympathy is
> a requirement for meaningful interaction with other people and
> happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without regards
> to other people could achieved it. Existing for yourself is a weak
> goal at best, one easily and commonly obtained, while existing for
> others is a moral objective. The paradox is that people are
> individuals and in order to work towards the common good self
> sacrifice is needed and a distancing from individualism. I suggest
> that reason must contemplate compromise, not expedience, and that the
> world is perishing from lack of self-sacrifice. You have a very
> self-satisfying idea of integrity.
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock
[hanson]
Be my guest, but you be amongst the few.
hanson
conp...@voyager.net
Good Christ, I hope you realize Spoke's words were written by a hack
Hollywood writer; we're not talking serious philosophy here.
Dennis
Gregory L. Hansen
In this case, the hack writer was drawing from the moral philosophy of
utilitarianism, which I'm sure every student of the liberal arts has
studied.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Mike Purcell
Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
on shared experiences. Shared experiences imply a certain amount of
sympathy. I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each
side needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any
successful negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved. If being well
fed is your idea of happiness then all you require is food but food is
generally considered a necessity for life. Any society requires a
balance between individualism and the common good. Where you place
yourself in the society is up to you but pure self-interest is usually
detrimental to the community and personally I wouldn't have the
slightest amount of trust in you.
Mike Purcell
> "Mike Purcell" <sacs...@rsvl.net> wrote in message
> news:29b25d31.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > Many things might be said or considered so please consider another
> > interpretation of Einstein's words without deeper reflection.
>
> [hanson]
> Is what follows below attributed to Einstein?
Many things might be said or considered so please consider another
interpretation of Einstein's words without deeper reflection.
> If yes, then it is classical, pathetic, quasi political-moralistic-religo-
> socio drivel one sees so very often from people who do nothing but
> coughing, barking and farting, when stepping outside their field of
> expertise.
> Einstein was no exception. He was actually full of it.
> That is excusable. What is not excusable is the behavior of their
> disciples who lap up every drop of such drivel, unconditionally
> and continue to promulgate it, hoping that someone will point out
> a sliver of elusive wisdom therein.
>
You seem to be full of such wisdom.
> [Mike]
> > We are
> > all obligated to other people both past and present for what they have
> > done for us whether intentional or not, known or unknown. Sympathy is
> > a requirement for meaningful interaction with other people and
> > happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without regards
> > to other people could achieved it. Existing for yourself is a weak
> > goal at best, one easily and commonly obtained, while existing for
> > others is a moral objective. The paradox is that people are
> > individuals and in order to work towards the common good self
> > sacrifice is needed and a distancing from individualism. I suggest
> > that reason must contemplate compromise, not expedience, and that the
> > world is perishing from lack of self-sacrifice. You have a very
> > self-satisfying idea of integrity.
>
> > "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock
>
> [hanson]
> Be my guest, but you be amongst the few.
> hanson
No thanks, I understand why you have few guests.
Mike Purcell
> How droll.
>
Really? I thought it was obvious.
Real Gone Daddy
> It is true curving of space is an illusion.
Yes, but no mythological "gravitons" are needed to stand in its place.
The cart is entirely before the horse here. This is a problem of
epistemology, not method (math and geometry).
Simply by sticking to clear, plain reality and making concepts fit
their definitions, everything starts to pan out just right.
1. Space is an abstraction -- as Einstein noted, there is no such
thing, except as contemplated relative to a body. No body, no space.
Einstein took off directly from Kant with this: space is mere
"extension", or as it is sometimes given in the geometrical
terminology, "continuation".
2. Spacetime is an intellectual and geometrical construct, again, an
abstraction that has no actual existence. Why? Because absent any
body, neither space nor time exist. Even with a body, they remain as
nothing other than concepts of measurement. Time is nothing but a way
to count the rotations of the earth. A sense of time is a merely
subjective, biological, strictly human consciousness of memory and
expectation, a recognition of biological aging. As a physical
absolute it went out with a few words from Einstein who was even,
himself mistaken to say "_continuum spatii et temporis est
absolutum_."
3. The connection between magnetism and gravity is entirely one of
cause and effect--but totally not one of identity or equality.
Electro-Magnetic radiation, the propagation of its waves throughout
the cosmos is responsible--now get this--for the *effect* of gravity
and gravitation: gravity is a purely mechanical reaction to the
action of em waves upon inertial masses. EM radiation is the motor
that powers the purely mechanical-inertial acceleration of
gravitational effect, but gravity is dead, it is not radioactive and
there is no such thing as "action at a distance" except with magnetism
and em radiation.
Now, let us deal with that . . .
4. Action at a Distance -- Newton derives from Kepler's Third Law
that the gravitational force varies according to the inverse square
of the distance between, e.g. the earth and the sun. This Universal
Law of Gravitation seems a perfectly elegant description of the
*seeming* force of attraction that is assumed to exist between
material, essentially non-magnetic bodies in space. It turns out that
this law is describing something else.
5. Something Else -- Because no presence of any force extending
between bodies in space has ever been found, and since even the
discernable existence of any field remains entirely undiscovered, this
really ought to clue us in to the fact that there truly is nothing
there. The Emperor in his New Gravitational Clothes is actually naked.
And he's been streaking across the stage of Physics, all these years
long enough. Time he got busted for "indecent exposure". Something
Else is there. What is there is a matter of pure geometry which has
to do with the degree of arc which any body in space will describe
with respect to another body in space, which is a matter that is
entirely dependent on the amount of mass in the respective bodies.
6. Electro-Magnetic Motive Force -- Only one thing exists in the
universe to impart motion to the masses in it and that is light
energy. That light carries force is beyond question, for Einstein has
proved it in the Photo-Electric Effect. Light acts as though it were
an actual particle shooting through space like magic bullets. Light
impacts matter, it sets matter into motion and it accelerates it once
it is in motion.
7. Inverse Square -- The amount of em force acting on any mass is
proportional to the amount of mass. When a mass attains to stellar
proportion, or even when it's a puny little solid mass like the earth,
one phenomenon is shared by both bodies: they both create, by their
very presence in space, a *light eddy* in the space around themselves.
On any side of the body there is an eddy of light as that side is "in
shadow" of the radiation on the other side of the body--but this eddy
is circular and it completely surrounds the body. There is a
spherical "penumbra" surrounding every body in the universe. If that
penumbra is what creates the Aurora Borealis? Don't ask me, all I
understand is that it is comprised of em diffraction patterns caused
by the breaking of em waves against the body. This accounts for the
Eddington Eclipse Experiment which was meant to demonstrate a
"gravitational" pull on the light waves of a star passing the sun,
hence the notion that the sun was "curving" space.
8. No "Curved Space" -- When there are two bodies in relative
proximity, one to the other in space, those two bodies are being
effected by the *same* force of the rotating sea of light radiation in
which they exist. That force of radiation orients both bodies in a
like direction of angular motion, and this is motion, the vectors of
which, for each body is proportional to its mass. Both bodies, no
matter what their mass will be accelerated in fall through space at
the same rate of angular velocity according to the Galilean Law, that
all bodies fall in vacuum at the same rate -- they fall together, but
in different arcs proportional to their mass.
9. Degree of Arc -- Proportional to the mass of the body is the
degree of arc which that body will describe in its motion through
space. The larger a mass, the greater the inertia and the larger its
degree of arc, and vice-versa. For this reason, Sun and Earth, like
Earth and Moon all move together in their pairs at identical rates of
angular velocity as given by the EM radiation powering them, and
because of their varying masses, the motion of each is in an orbital
relation to the other. Because all motion is in comportment with the
rotating cosmos, there is no question of the earth having to
accelerate beyond the angular velocity of the sun to get around
it--all motion is angular, and accelerated inversely proportional to
the mass--the tighter the arc the greater the acceleration.
10. And That's All, Folks!
Boris Mohar
(Real Gone Daddy) wrote:
Snip..
>
>5. Something Else -- Because no presence of any force extending
>between bodies in space has ever been found, and since even the
>discernable existence of any field remains entirely undiscovered, this
>really ought to clue us in to the fact that there truly is nothing
Have you ever played with magnets?
Robert J. Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
> In this case, the hack writer was drawing from the moral philosophy of
> utilitarianism, which I'm sure every student of the liberal arts has
> studied.
Bentham and Mills.
In a similar fashion, Kantian morality pervades most writing and drama.
How man times have you heard this argument?
A: I will do X.
B: What?? Supposing everyone did X?
Categorical Imperative anyone?
Bob Kolker
Mike Purcell
> >"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock
>
> Good Christ, I hope you realize Spoke's words were written by a hack
> Hollywood writer; we're not talking serious philosophy here.
>
> Dennis
You guys have no sense of humor.
Chosp
Some more than others.
Mike Purcell
> > It is true curving of space is an illusion.
>
> Yes, but no mythological "gravitons" are needed to stand in its place.
> The cart is entirely before the horse here. This is a problem of
> epistemology, not method (math and geometry).
Space curvature is a mathematical and geometrical construct. What's
your problem? And let's leave Descartes out of it, he no longer
exists.
> Simply by sticking to clear, plain reality and making concepts fit
> their definitions, everything starts to pan out just right.
Yep, it's called science.
> 1. Space is an abstraction -- as Einstein noted, there is no such
> thing, except as contemplated relative to a body. No body, no space.
> Einstein took off directly from Kant with this: space is mere
> "extension", or as it is sometimes given in the geometrical
> terminology, "continuation".
If there was nobody then it really wouldn't matter.
> 2. Spacetime is an intellectual and geometrical construct, again, an
> abstraction that has no actual existence. Why? Because absent any
> body, neither space nor time exist. Even with a body, they remain as
> nothing other than concepts of measurement. Time is nothing but a way
> to count the rotations of the earth. A sense of time is a merely
> subjective, biological, strictly human consciousness of memory and
> expectation, a recognition of biological aging. As a physical
> absolute it went out with a few words from Einstein who was even,
> himself mistaken to say "_continuum spatii et temporis est
> absolutum_."
Concepts of measurement are fairly important in a useful kind of way.
What you are saying is a merely subjective, biological, strictly human
consciousness of memory and expectation and a result of biological
aging.
> 3. The connection between magnetism and gravity is entirely one of
> cause and effect--but totally not one of identity or equality.
> Electro-Magnetic radiation, the propagation of its waves throughout
> the cosmos is responsible--now get this--for the *effect* of gravity
> and gravitation: gravity is a purely mechanical reaction to the
> action of em waves upon inertial masses. EM radiation is the motor
> that powers the purely mechanical-inertial acceleration of
> gravitational effect, but gravity is dead, it is not radioactive and
> there is no such thing as "action at a distance" except with magnetism
> and em radiation.
But what does the effect cause? I am greatly relieved that gravity is
not radioactive.
> Now, let us deal with that . . .
By all means.
> 4. Action at a Distance -- Newton derives from Kepler's Third Law
> that the gravitational force varies according to the inverse square
> of the distance between, e.g. the earth and the sun. This Universal
> Law of Gravitation seems a perfectly elegant description of the
> *seeming* force of attraction that is assumed to exist between
> material, essentially non-magnetic bodies in space. It turns out that
> this law is describing something else.
An assumed *seeming* force?
> 5. Something Else -- Because no presence of any force extending
> between bodies in space has ever been found, and since even the
> discernable existence of any field remains entirely undiscovered, this
> really ought to clue us in to the fact that there truly is nothing
> there. The Emperor in his New Gravitational Clothes is actually naked.
> And he's been streaking across the stage of Physics, all these years
> long enough. Time he got busted for "indecent exposure". Something
> Else is there. What is there is a matter of pure geometry which has
> to do with the degree of arc which any body in space will describe
> with respect to another body in space, which is a matter that is
> entirely dependent on the amount of mass in the respective bodies.
Else shouldn't have peeked. Just how massive is she anyway? Was there
an attraction? Is that why she didn't report the Emperor to the
fashion police?
> 6. Electro-Magnetic Motive Force -- Only one thing exists in the
> universe to impart motion to the masses in it and that is light
> energy. That light carries force is beyond question, for Einstein has
> proved it in the Photo-Electric Effect. Light acts as though it were
> an actual particle shooting through space like magic bullets. Light
> impacts matter, it sets matter into motion and it accelerates it once
> it is in motion.
Then matter must be light energy. I always thought I was a shining
light that shot magic bullets.
> 7. Inverse Square -- The amount of em force acting on any mass is
> proportional to the amount of mass. When a mass attains to stellar
> proportion, or even when it's a puny little solid mass like the earth,
> one phenomenon is shared by both bodies: they both create, by their
> very presence in space, a *light eddy* in the space around themselves.
> On any side of the body there is an eddy of light as that side is "in
> shadow" of the radiation on the other side of the body--but this eddy
> is circular and it completely surrounds the body. There is a
> spherical "penumbra" surrounding every body in the universe. If that
> penumbra is what creates the Aurora Borealis? Don't ask me, all I
> understand is that it is comprised of em diffraction patterns caused
> by the breaking of em waves against the body. This accounts for the
> Eddington Eclipse Experiment which was meant to demonstrate a
> "gravitational" pull on the light waves of a star passing the sun,
> hence the notion that the sun was "curving" space.
I suspect you understand much less than that. A circular *light eddy*
that completely surrounds a body on the side of the body that is "in
shadow"? I always wondered what those patterns on sandy beaches were
called.
> 8. No "Curved Space" -- When there are two bodies in relative
> proximity, one to the other in space, those two bodies are being
> effected by the *same* force of the rotating sea of light radiation in
> which they exist. That force of radiation orients both bodies in a
> like direction of angular motion, and this is motion, the vectors of
> which, for each body is proportional to its mass. Both bodies, no
> matter what their mass will be accelerated in fall through space at
> the same rate of angular velocity according to the Galilean Law, that
> all bodies fall in vacuum at the same rate -- they fall together, but
> in different arcs proportional to their mass.
Motion is a force of rotating light radiation that orients bodies in a
like direction of angular motion and it's direction is proportional to
mass and bodies will be accelerated at the same rate of angular
velocity independent of mass? Is there some sort of equation for this?
> 9. Degree of Arc -- Proportional to the mass of the body is the
> degree of arc which that body will describe in its motion through
> space. The larger a mass, the greater the inertia and the larger its
> degree of arc, and vice-versa. For this reason, Sun and Earth, like
> Earth and Moon all move together in their pairs at identical rates of
> angular velocity as given by the EM radiation powering them, and
> because of their varying masses, the motion of each is in an orbital
> relation to the other. Because all motion is in comportment with the
> rotating cosmos, there is no question of the earth having to
> accelerate beyond the angular velocity of the sun to get around
> it--all motion is angular, and accelerated inversely proportional to
> the mass--the tighter the arc the greater the acceleration.
OK, say I kicked a 2kg ball at a 35 degree angle with the ground and
an initial speed of 20 m/s on May 15, 2002 at the University of
California football field in Sacramento with my right foot right
before I shot my magic bullets. How high and how far did it travel?
> 10. And That's All, Folks!
How droll.
John P David
>
> How droll.
<G>
Seriously, I thought you were kidding with your response to the Ayn
Rand/Einstein thread. Have you seen *The Fountainhead*? Rent it this
weekend, and see. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you had to say, as I did
in fact agree with some of it--all except for the comment about a necessity
for sacrifice of Individualism toward some common good. I see that nothing
can be more toward the common good than a strong emphasis upon a
consciousness of individual dignity, independence and personal integrity--in
inverse proportion to the mass perception.
Now, I noted an error in the following . . .
> > 9. Degree of Arc -- Proportional to the mass of the body is the
> > degree of arc which that body will describe in its motion through
> > space. The larger a mass, the greater the inertia and the larger its
> > degree of arc, and vice-versa. For this reason, Sun and Earth, like
> > Earth and Moon all move together in their pairs at identical rates of
> > angular velocity as given by the EM radiation powering them, and
> > because of their varying masses, the motion of each is in an orbital
> > relation to the other. Because all motion is in comportment with the
> > rotating cosmos, there is no question of the earth having to
> > accelerate beyond the angular velocity of the sun to get around
> > it--all motion is angular, and accelerated inversely proportional to
> > the mass--the tighter the arc the greater the acceleration.
That should have read . . .
> > the mass--[but] the tighter the arc the greater the [angular velocity
not "acceleration"] *as per local revolution* (earth to sun, moon to earth)
whereas the overall rate of angular velocity for all bodies accelerating
together according to the Galilean Law of falling bodies in galactic motion
remains the same.
There would have been a serious contradiction without that qualification.
It said, "all motion is angular, and accelerated inversely proportional to
the mass (that's just the Galilean Law for falling bodies in vacuum)--the
tighter the arc the greater the acceleration." Wrong. The term "angular
velocity" is not the same as the term "acceleration". So, that latter
hyphenated statement would have meant, in a universal sense to be saying
"the smaller the mass, the greater the acceleration."
Not!
But as to galactic motion, sun, earth and moon, are all falling,
accelerating at the same rate subject to the Galilean Law. But when the
mass is far smaller than a star, and is falling in proximity to that star,
it's smaller mass forces it to describe a smaller arc of its own independent
motion in orbit of the star, and the fact of its tighter arc of motion means
that its own independent rate of angular velocity in orbital motion seems to
(but really doesn't) show a greater rate of acceleration: No. It's merely a
greater angular velocity: the earth takes a year to get around the sun, but
the moon takes a month to get around the earth.
Indeed, it is the tighter arc which accounts for a greater *angular
velocity* but not a greater rate of acceleration. Of course not. That
remains the same for every falling body at 32 feet per second per second.
But when that falling body is forced into a tighter arc to cover less space,
while that rate of acceleration remains the same, it produces greater
angular velocity. That's how the earth can seemingly, but not really "go
faster" in order to keep up with the sun in its orbit around it.
Why, shore 'nuff. ;-)
John P David
"John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac3sfc$rls$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
There is an irrelevant statement in this that must come out . . .
>
> But as to galactic motion, sun, earth and moon, are all falling,
> accelerating at the same rate subject to the Galilean Law. But when the
> mass is far smaller than a star, and is falling in proximity to that star,
> it's smaller mass forces it to describe a smaller arc of its own
independent
> motion in orbit of the star, and the fact of its tighter arc of motion
means
> that its own independent rate of angular velocity in orbital motion seems
to
> (but really doesn't) show a greater rate of acceleration: No. It's merely
a
> greater angular velocity.
The following statement has nothing to do with it . . .
: the earth takes a year to get around the sun, but
> the moon takes a month to get around the earth.
And here is the crux of the matter . . .
>
> Indeed, it is the tighter arc which accounts for a greater *angular
> velocity* but not a greater rate of acceleration. Of course not. That
> remains the same for every falling body at 32 feet per second per second.
> But when that falling body is forced into a tighter arc to cover less
space,
Mike Varney
"Real Gone Daddy" <long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com> wrote in message
news:e156f08c.02051...@posting.google.com...
> herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message
news:<10187-3CC...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > It is true curving of space is an illusion.
>
> Yes,
No, moron.
<SNIP tons of compost with no insight>
Mike Purcell
Yep, you got me. I know better than to use such generalities. I was
just hoping someone would prove me wrong.
Mike Purcell
> Rand/Einstein thread. Have you seen *The Fountainhead*? Rent it this
> weekend, and see. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you had to say, as I did
> in fact agree with some of it--all except for the comment about a necessity
> for sacrifice of Individualism toward some common good. I see that nothing
> can be more toward the common good than a strong emphasis upon a
> consciousness of individual dignity, independence and personal integrity--in
> inverse proportion to the mass perception.
Seriously then. No I haven't seen *The Fountainhead* but I'll look
into it. My response to the Ayn Rand/Einstein thread was simply an
interpretation of those words of Einstein's that you gave which I
happen to agree with. The problem with Individualism is that everyone
wants something different and that we have to make some compromises in
order to live with each other. I agree that a society should advance
individual freedoms as long as they are not at the expense of another
individual. I believe that the complete sacrifice of Individualism
towards the benefit of humanity is the highest aspiration and that
people fall somewhere in the continuum between these extremes.
As far as your theory is concerned you need a rigorous mathematical
treatment or it is not of much use. You argue that EM radiation causes
gravitation but what causes EM radiation? This kind of reasoning is
endless, we can't know why things are the way the are only that that
is what is observed. You are arguing against mathematical theories
based on what has been observed and there really is no contest. You
need to be able to apply it to problem solving such as the simple
problem that I gave you, Newtonian Mechanics does that very easily.
But you might be interested in similar theories such as String Theory
and Stochastic Aerodynamics. And Quantum Mechanics is based on
probability waves.
Dale A Trynor
A bit off topic, but sense the above title tended too invite mentioning a
cartoon I just recently made about a week ago, I thought it might be fun to
mention it here.
http://www.9cy.com/members2/dalet/curve.html
Mensanator
>From: Dale A Trynor da...@nbnet.nb.ca
>Date: 5/18/02 10:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3CE75733...@nbnet.nb.ca>
Wow. I was impressed by the surrealism of the underlying metafor.
Mike Purcell
tadchem
Have you done one on black holes?
Wait! Never mind. I'm sure I don't want to know.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Marion Hobba
'The problem with Individualism is that everyone wants something different
and that we have to make some compromises in order to live with each other'
I would not call them compromises, I would call them respect for others
rights. The problem of course is determining what those 'rights' are. This
is difficult and a legitimate area of debate.
Mike Purcell wrote:
'I agree that a society should advance individual freedoms as long as they
are not at the expense of another individual'
Of course - society could not exist otherwise. But it must be the rights of
another individual not their feelings, whims, desires etc.
Mike Purcell wrote:
'I believe that the complete sacrifice of Individualism towards the benefit
of humanity is the highest aspiration and that people fall somewhere in the
continuum between these extremes'
Based on what - communist Russia, China or perhaps Cuba? Who decides on
what is beneficial to humanity; you, me or the man in the moon. Whoever
they are would wield a lot of power and you know what they say; absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
The only thing it can be based on is what is necessary for human beings to
coexist together. It must not be based on the idea that another human being
must exist to benefit you. Each human being makes their own decisions so
each human being must decide for themselves if they want to live for the
benefit of others. It is not a human right that you must exist for the
benefit of others. The logical conclusion of this is each contributes
according to their ability and receives according to their needs. Under
such a system their is a scramble to demonstrate your lack of ability
(except perhaps in the area of determining another persons ability and
hiding yours) and have plenty of needs.
These areas a difficult and not the realm of relativity. I do not know the
answers but I do know the answer is not to make people work for the welfare
of others - it simply does not work.
Thanks
Bill
Mike Purcell
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>
> 'The problem with Individualism is that everyone wants something different
> and that we have to make some compromises in order to live with each other'
>
> I would not call them compromises, I would call them respect for others
> rights. The problem of course is determining what those 'rights' are. This
> is difficult and a legitimate area of debate.
I was thinking more along the lines of the limitations of
Individualism. Respect for others rights should be enough but it is
only a prerequisite for debate and the result of debate is ususally a
compromise.
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>
> 'I agree that a society should advance individual freedoms as long as they
> are not at the expense of another individual'
>
> Of course - society could not exist otherwise. But it must be the rights of
> another individual not their feelings, whims, desires etc.
And how are these rights determined. A sympathetic feeling (which
arises from shared needs, wants, and experiences), a whim for freedom,
and a desire to live togeather are required as well a respect for
another individuals rights.
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>
> 'I believe that the complete sacrifice of Individualism towards the benefit
> of humanity is the highest aspiration and that people fall somewhere in the
> continuum between these extremes'
>
> Based on what - communist Russia, China or perhaps Cuba?
Based on the survival of the species.
> Who decides on
> what is beneficial to humanity; you, me or the man in the moon.
You do. Every individual must make their own decisions.
> Whoever
> they are would wield a lot of power and you know what they say;
"This is the fallacy of power: ultimately it is effective only in an
absolute, a limited universe. But the basic lesson of our relativistic
universe is that things change. Any power must always meet a greater
power" -- The Preacher
> absolute
> power corrupts absolutely.
"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power
corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Missionaria
Protectiva
> The only thing it can be based on is what is necessary for human beings to
> coexist together.
I would hope that we can do a little more than just exist togeather,
we also need to be able to work togeather to ensure that existance.
> It must not be based on the idea that another human being
> must exist to benefit you. Each human being makes their own decisions so
> each human being must decide for themselves if they want to live for the
> benefit of others. It is not a human right that you must exist for the
> benefit of others. The logical conclusion of this is each contributes
> according to their ability and receives according to their needs.
I do not see how this is a logical conclusionb each also contributes
according to their whim and receives according to availability.
> Under
> such a system their is a scramble to demonstrate your lack of ability
> (except perhaps in the area of determining another persons ability and
> hiding yours) and have plenty of needs.
Are you talking about the Peter Principle or is this a personal
problem?
> These areas a difficult and not the realm of relativity.
Oh, but it is. There are no absolutes, all frames of reference are
equally valid.
> I do not know the
> answers but I do know the answer is not to make people work for the welfare
> of others - it simply does not work.
Do you oppose welfare programs? I know the one we have does not work
very well and people should work for their own welfare but it is
difficult to predict the amount of welfare an individual will need.
> Thanks
> Bill
You are welcome, but don't call me Bill, it's confusing (-;
Mike alias Michael alias Michael Purcell alias Michael Wayne.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> on shared experiences.
No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
interaction.
> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
> I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
> If being well fed is your idea of happiness
It is not.
> Any society requires a balance between individualism and the common
> good.
No.
> Where you place yourself in the society is up to you but pure
> self-interest is usually detrimental to the community
No.
> and personally I wouldn't have the slightest amount of trust in you.
Your problem. I have much less trust in people who make highly moral
claims and pretend to have no self-interest.
Robert J. Kolker
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>
> Your problem. I have much less trust in people who make highly moral
> claims and pretend to have no self-interest.
If someone approaches you with the claim that he is there to help you,
flee for your life!
Bob Kolker
Mike Purcell
The paramedics will probably catch you.
Mike Purcell
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> > Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> > on shared experiences.
>
> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
> interaction.
But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
> > Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>
> No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
You have no sympathy for either one?
> > I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> > needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> > negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
>
> To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
> like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
> > If being well fed is your idea of happiness
>
> It is not.
Then why say it?
> > Any society requires a balance between individualism and the common
> > good.
>
> No.
Couldn't think of an argument?
> > Where you place yourself in the society is up to you but pure
> > self-interest is usually detrimental to the community
>
> No.
Couldn't think of an argument?
> > and personally I wouldn't have the slightest amount of trust in you.
>
> Your problem. I have much less trust in people who make highly moral
> claims and pretend to have no self-interest.
>
> Ilja
It's your problem as well if you want something from someone else but
you are right that everyone has some degree of self-intrest. How else
could we sympathize?
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote
>> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
>>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
>>> on shared experiences.
>> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
>> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
>> interaction.
> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
> talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
A shared language is, of course, helpful. But learning this shared
language starting from different original languages is not a shared
experience but a quite different one.
>>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>> No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
> You have no sympathy for either one?
That's not the point, I have not shared that experience. My point is
that above participants of this shared experience named rape have
probably no sympathy for each other, contrary to the original claim.
>>> I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
>>> needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
>>> negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
>>
>> To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
>> like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
>
> I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
I don't understand your point here.
>>> If being well fed is your idea of happiness
>> It is not.
> Then why say it?
You have misunderstood my analogy argument.
>>> Any society requires a balance between individualism and the common
>>> good.
>> No.
> Couldn't think of an argument?
I think somebody who claims that something is required should present
the arguments.
>>> Where you place yourself in the society is up to you but pure
>>> self-interest is usually detrimental to the community
>> No.
> Couldn't think of an argument?
I think somebody who make a claim that something is "usually
detrimental" should prove it. My self-interest is usually not
detrimental to the community.
Everett Hickey
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
news:<i3gznys...@wias-berlin.de>...
> > sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> > > Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> > > on shared experiences.
> >
> > No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
> > they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
> > interaction.
>
> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
> talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
Interaction, at it's simplest, simply means activity that involves another
human being. Then again, you can also interact with a dog, a cat, a
lizard... pretty much anything concious, even if not sentient. I think
interaction, to actually be interaction, requires that you're target (for
any action, friendly or hostile) is capable of being aware that you exist.
They don't even have to know you're there, as long as you're providing a
stimulus and they react to it. But the emotional version you originally
gave is a very narrow interpretation of "interaction" that primarily targets
only positive interaction. The only common ground truly required for
interaction as a generalized concept is that both entities can sense (with
some sort of sense) the stimulus presented by the other, and note it's
response. This applies for everything from a paramecium on a slide to two
diplomats working out a proposal.
> > > Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
> >
> > No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
>
> You have no sympathy for either one?
Sympathy may not be a good word. Prehaps Empathy. And I don't mean empathy
as a warm fuzzy thing where you can sense the other's emotions or "feel for
them", but simply the fact that, as a member of the same species, you know
how they are likely to interpret what you do, and are familiar with the
range of emotions they are capable of. If you know what makes people happy,
then you can empathize in that respect, applying that idea to someone else.
If you know what makes people hate, then again you can empathize. In the
example of rape, sympathy is not involved as the rapist will usually
dehumanize his subject (except for the worst of the worst, most rapists
couldn't do their deed very easily if they thought of their victim in human
terms). It's the same in war - see the enemy as less human, so you're more
capable of shooting them.
> > > I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> > > needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> > > negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
> >
> > To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
> > like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
>
> I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
Again I think you confuse empathy with sympathy. Sympathy involves
associating with another's thoughts by experiencing the same emotions with
them. Empathy simply involves understanding their thoughts and feelings by
your own experience with them and their causes... one requires a bit of
humanity, the other can be applied for good as well as the most sinister and
depraved acts.
It HELPS an argument if both sides understand eachother. But in the end
they only have to have the fact of what the other wants. That requires no
empathy of any sort, just pure calculation.
> It's your problem as well if you want something from someone else but
> you are right that everyone has some degree of self-intrest. How else
> could we sympathize?
Again, you're talking empathy, not sympathy. I think that's the main cause
of the argument, because changing that one word completely alters it's
point.
the reticent
> > Many things might be said or considered so please consider another
> > interpretation of Einstein's words without deeper reflection.
>
> [hanson]
> Is what follows below attributed to Einstein?
> socio drivel one sees so very often from people who do nothing but
> coughing, barking and farting, when stepping outside their field of
> expertise.
> Einstein was no exception. He was actually full of it.
> That is excusable. What is not excusable is the behavior of their
> disciples who lap up every drop of such drivel, unconditionally
> and continue to promulgate it, hoping that someone will point out
> a sliver of elusive wisdom therein.
>
> > We are
> > all obligated to other people both past and present for what they have
> > done for us whether intentional or not, known or unknown. Sympathy is
> > a requirement for meaningful interaction with other people and
> > happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without regards
> > to other people could achieved it. Existing for yourself is a weak
> > goal at best, one easily and commonly obtained, while existing for
> > others is a moral objective. The paradox is that people are
> > individuals and in order to work towards the common good self
> > sacrifice is needed and a distancing from individualism. I suggest
> > that reason must contemplate compromise, not expedience, and that the
> > world is perishing from lack of self-sacrifice. You have a very
> > self-satisfying idea of integrity.
>
>
> Be my guest, but you be amongst the few.
> hanson
Well, hanson, I fail to see what is so elusive about the wisdom
therein. It's an age-old philosophy. It is a classic rumination on
the idea of many parts with distinct functions coming together to form
a functional whole. The United States are joined with such a
philosophy, as is modern society in general. The need for
individuality is not in question unless each person can somehow do
everything that everyone else can do. It makes perfect sense that one
would try to further the happiness of others with whom he shares a
world. In that sense, all one does is still self-serving, while at
the same time he holds to utilitarianism. Einstein is just repeating
what has been said by many philosophers before him, and anyone who
finds wisdom in his "drivel" is finding wisdom in an idea that has
been around for millenia.
the reticent
Mike Purcell
We were talking about interactions between human beings and I
originally said meaningful interaction, and by that I did mean
positive interaction since negative interaction isn't very
constructive. A person might scare another person for the enjoyment of
seeing their fright but I don't think that this is a very "meaningful"
interaction. I would think that more interaction is required of
diplomats than of paramecium but I could be wrong.
> > > > Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
> > >
> > > No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
> >
> > You have no sympathy for either one?
>
> Sympathy may not be a good word. Prehaps Empathy. And I don't mean empathy
> as a warm fuzzy thing where you can sense the other's emotions or "feel for
> them", but simply the fact that, as a member of the same species, you know
> how they are likely to interpret what you do, and are familiar with the
> range of emotions they are capable of. If you know what makes people happy,
> then you can empathize in that respect, applying that idea to someone else.
> If you know what makes people hate, then again you can empathize. In the
> example of rape, sympathy is not involved as the rapist will usually
> dehumanize his subject (except for the worst of the worst, most rapists
> couldn't do their deed very easily if they thought of their victim in human
> terms). It's the same in war - see the enemy as less human, so you're more
> capable of shooting them.
Yes, you are right, empathy might have been a better word there if you
don't like that warm fuzzy feeling, but empathy enables us to feel
sympathy. Since we can put ourselves in the position of another
person, we are capable of sympathizing with them. And as you said, not
to do so is inhuman. And as you also said empathy means you "are
familiar with the range of emotions they are capable of" we can
empathize with emotions as well as wants and needs. Sympathy is
empathizing with emotions and is unavoidable between human beings.
Have you ever noticed that when a person gets angry that people around
them tend to get angry, the same with laughter.
> > > > I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> > > > needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> > > > negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
> > >
> > > To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
> > > like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
> >
> > I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
>
> Again I think you confuse empathy with sympathy. Sympathy involves
> associating with another's thoughts by experiencing the same emotions with
> them. Empathy simply involves understanding their thoughts and feelings by
> your own experience with them and their causes... one requires a bit of
> humanity, the other can be applied for good as well as the most sinister and
> depraved acts.
What we have here is a difference of degree. In your own definitions
what is the difference between "experiencing the same emotions" and
"understanding their feelings"? Sympathy is a higher order of empathy,
what you choose to do with this is up to you, you can ignore it
(common), you can turn it ("sinister and depraved"), or you can accept
it (normal, like me (-; ).
> It HELPS an argument if both sides understand eachother. But in the end
> they only have to have the fact of what the other wants. That requires no
> empathy of any sort, just pure calculation.
Sure understanding helps, in fact I believe that should be the purpose
of argument. And it would be nice if everyone was always logical but
not very realistic. Empathy is unavoidable between human beings and
sympathy enables a better understanding.
> > It's your problem as well if you want something from someone else but
> > you are right that everyone has some degree of self-intrest. How else
> > could we sympathize?
>
> Again, you're talking empathy, not sympathy. I think that's the main cause
> of the argument, because changing that one word completely alters it's
> point.
Arguing over the definition of a word is a little anal retentive but
as I said "a shared language is also helpful" for meaningful
interaction. Which is why I have tried to use your definitions, all I
ask is that you try to understand my use of words. And I don't think
it changes my point, which is an "interpretation" of the original post
of this thread:
"But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one
exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles
and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the
many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of
sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and
outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and
that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I
have received and am still receiving..."
Mike Purcell
We were talking about interactions between human beings and I
originally said meaningful interaction, and by that I did mean
positive interaction since negative interaction isn't very
constructive. A person might scare another person for the enjoyment of
seeing their fright but I don't think that this is a very "meaningful"
interaction. I would think that more interaction is required of
diplomats than of paramecium but I could be wrong.
> > > > Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
> > >
> > > No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
> >
> > You have no sympathy for either one?
>
> Sympathy may not be a good word. Prehaps Empathy. And I don't mean empathy
> as a warm fuzzy thing where you can sense the other's emotions or "feel for
> them", but simply the fact that, as a member of the same species, you know
> how they are likely to interpret what you do, and are familiar with the
> range of emotions they are capable of. If you know what makes people happy,
> then you can empathize in that respect, applying that idea to someone else.
> If you know what makes people hate, then again you can empathize. In the
> example of rape, sympathy is not involved as the rapist will usually
> dehumanize his subject (except for the worst of the worst, most rapists
> couldn't do their deed very easily if they thought of their victim in human
> terms). It's the same in war - see the enemy as less human, so you're more
> capable of shooting them.
Yes, you are right, empathy might have been a better word there if you
don't like that warm fuzzy feeling, but empathy enables us to feel
sympathy. Since we can put ourselves in the position of another
person, we are capable of sympathizing with them. And as you said, not
to do so is inhuman. And as you also said empathy means you "are
familiar with the range of emotions they are capable of" so we can
empathize with emotions as well as wants and needs. Sympathy is
empathizing with emotions and is unavoidable between human beings.
Have you ever noticed that when a person gets angry that people around
them tend to get angry, the same with laughter.
> > > > I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> > > > needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> > > > negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
> > >
> > > To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
> > > like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
> >
> > I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
>
> Again I think you confuse empathy with sympathy. Sympathy involves
> associating with another's thoughts by experiencing the same emotions with
> them. Empathy simply involves understanding their thoughts and feelings by
> your own experience with them and their causes... one requires a bit of
> humanity, the other can be applied for good as well as the most sinister and
> depraved acts.
What we have here is a difference of degree. In your own definitions
what is the difference between "experiencing the same emotions" and
"understanding their feelings"? Sympathy is a higher order of empathy,
what you choose to do with this is up to you, you can ignore it
(common), you can turn it ("sinister and depraved"), or you can accept
it (normal, like me (-; ).
> It HELPS an argument if both sides understand eachother. But in the end
> they only have to have the fact of what the other wants. That requires no
> empathy of any sort, just pure calculation.
Sure understanding helps, in fact I believe that should be the purpose
of argument. And it would be nice if everyone was always logical but
not very realistic. Empathy is unavoidable between human beings and
sympathy enables a better understanding.
> > It's your problem as well if you want something from someone else but
> > you are right that everyone has some degree of self-intrest. How else
> > could we sympathize?
>
> Again, you're talking empathy, not sympathy. I think that's the main cause
> of the argument, because changing that one word completely alters it's
> point.
Arguing over the definitions of words is a little anal retentive but
Mike Purcell
>
> Well, hanson, I fail to see what is so elusive about the wisdom
> therein. It's an age-old philosophy. It is a classic rumination on
> the idea of many parts with distinct functions coming together to form
> a functional whole. The United States are joined with such a
> philosophy, as is modern society in general. The need for
> individuality is not in question unless each person can somehow do
> everything that everyone else can do. It makes perfect sense that one
> would try to further the happiness of others with whom he shares a
> world. In that sense, all one does is still self-serving, while at
> the same time he holds to utilitarianism. Einstein is just repeating
> what has been said by many philosophers before him, and anyone who
> finds wisdom in his "drivel" is finding wisdom in an idea that has
> been around for millenia.
>
> the reticent
Well, I don't know about philosophy, I'm just looking at more of a
practical approach to mutual existance. I like what you said though,
you can have your cake and eat it too. I also think that personal
happiness can be increased by trying "to further the happiness of
others".
Mike Purcell
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> > Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote
> >> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> >>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> >>> on shared experiences.
>
> >> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
> >> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
> >> interaction.
>
> > But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
> > a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
> > talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
>
> A shared language is, of course, helpful. But learning this shared
> language starting from different original languages is not a shared
> experience but a quite different one.
But the language itself is shared and hopefully the meanings of the
words.
> >>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>
> >> No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
>
> > You have no sympathy for either one?
>
> That's not the point, I have not shared that experience. My point is
> that above participants of this shared experience named rape have
> probably no sympathy for each other, contrary to the original claim.
Not at all, even though you have not had that particular experience
you can empathize with and even sympathize with the participants. It
is harder to do so with the rapist since society does not usually
approve so it is not very common and we don't like to admit being
capable of it. But sympathizing with the victim is fairly easy to do
since it is acceptable and we have all had experiences of being
forced. A rapist does sympathize with their victim if only to enjoy
the victims feeling of helplessness. In fact I believe this to be the
cause of rape, a feeling of helplessness that can be alleviated by
exerting control over someone else.
> >>> I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each side
> >>> needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any successful
> >>> negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
> >>
> >> To understand the message of the other person (which may be something
> >> like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is necessary.
> >
> > I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
>
> I don't understand your point here.
That's understandable.(-;
Sympathy is not necessary for a "message" to be understood but it does
add a lot of meaning. Empathy is being able to put yourself in another
person's position and is possible because we are all human beings. All
people have a degree of self-interest with all the logic, instincts,
and emotions that are involved so all messages between people are
shaded by a degree of emotion and sympathy is required for a better
understanding.
> >>> If being well fed is your idea of happiness
>
> >> It is not.
>
> > Then why say it?
>
> You have misunderstood my analogy argument.
Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message news:<i3g7km4...@wias-berlin.de>...
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> > and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
> > regards to other people could achieved it.
> No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
What was your "analogy argument"?
> >>> Any society requires a balance between individualism and the common
> >>> good.
>
> >> No.
>
> > Couldn't think of an argument?
>
> I think somebody who claims that something is required should present
> the arguments.
You claim that I am wrong without presenting an argument so my claim
stands. I could claim that food is required to live but feel that it
is obvious enough without going into the details. But if you want me
to explain myself...
> >>> Where you place yourself in the society is up to you but pure
> >>> self-interest is usually detrimental to the community
>
> >> No.
>
> > Couldn't think of an argument?
>
> I think somebody who make a claim that something is "usually
> detrimental" should prove it. My self-interest is usually not
> detrimental to the community.
>
> Ilja
I said "pure self-interest" and I qualified it by "usually". I notice
that you also qualified yourself. And I don't have to prove anything
(in fact the only things that anyone is able to prove are mathematical
theorems). Is your self-interest beneficial to the community?
Marion Hobba
Mike Purcell wrote:
> I was thinking more along the lines of the limitations of
> Individualism. Respect for others rights should be enough but it is
> only a prerequisite for debate and the result of debate is ususally a
> compromise.
I am forced to agree in principle.
Mike Purcell wrote:
> And how are these rights determined. A sympathetic feeling (which
> arises from shared needs, wants, and experiences), a whim for freedom,
> and a desire to live togeather are required as well a respect for
> another individuals rights.
Not an easy question to answer. There are some that are obvious. For
example if you had the right to kill anyone you wish; eveyone would spend
their time trying to protect themselves instead of getting on with life. To
make things easier they would, for example, form into groups and have
organised protection ie systems a lot like the current legal protections we
have.
Others are not as clear though. For example does religious freedom include
the right to mutilate children via a female circumcision? Do the same rules
apply to male circumcision; especially when it has been shown to possibly
have some slight health adavantagers? I do not know. All I know is some
seem clear others not.
Bill Hobba wrote referring to the principle of each according to his ability
to each according to his need:
> > Under such a system their is a scramble to demonstrate your lack of
ability
> > (except perhaps in the area of determining another persons ability and
> > hiding yours) and have plenty of needs.
Mike Purcell wrote:
>
> Are you talking about the Peter Principle or is this a personal
> problem?
>
Personal observation. As an example my mother used to emply a cleaning
lady. She was on the lookout all the time to increase her pension. Her
husband lived with her on the sly but she claimed the deserted wifes pension
and was constantly asking me (because I worked for the government) ways she
could pulll it off. She was not the only one.
Mike Purcell wrote:
> Do you oppose welfare programs? I know the one we have does not work
> very well and people should work for their own welfare but it is
> difficult to predict the amount of welfare an individual will need.
Not in principle. But what I want to see is efficient programs.
For example here in Australia the government gives a subsidy for private
health insurance even to relatively high income earners like myself who can
easily afford to pay. These companies have about a 15% overhead; a lot of
money goes into duplicating the services and outlets of other companies and
spending on advertising to poach members from other companies. Now you
would expect competition to bring prices down; and in most cases you would
be correct. However it is not true in this case; government run health
insurance has only about a 3% overhead. Obviously it would be more
efficient to scrub private health insurance companies; have only one run by
the government; force all to belong and only have subsidies for low income
earners.
The above is just an example. It begs the question of if people should be
forced to have health insurance; should the government subsidise low income
earners etc but overall it would achieve better more efficient outcomes than
the current system. This is what I consider one of the most important
functions of modern government; first to operate efficiently at what they
currently do then later look at what they should be doing.
Thanks
Ryan
[reply set to alt.sci.physics]
>
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>> I was thinking more along the lines of the limitations of
>> Individualism. Respect for others rights should be enough but it is
>> only a prerequisite for debate and the result of debate is ususally a
>> compromise.
>
> I am forced to agree in principle.
Its true. Soceity thinks more in grouping, its a human classification
example. Its very hard to define a individual, so its based on
similarities. But it is also based in freedoms. When you talk of freedom,
one cannot allow a group to have all the freedom. So the rules are based,
to allow everyone a little something; But profit is also a prime
concern. So the poor generally loose, and the country wants to
attract the rich, so the benefits are higher, there is no accounting
for growth rate: The more money you have, the more money you make.
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>> And how are these rights determined. A sympathetic feeling (which
>> arises from shared needs, wants, and experiences), a whim for
>> freedom, and a desire to live togeather are required as well a
>> respect for another individuals rights.
>
> Not an easy question to answer. There are some that are obvious. For
> example if you had the right to kill anyone you wish; eveyone would
> spend their time trying to protect themselves instead of getting on
> with life. To make things easier they would, for example, form into
> groups and have organised protection ie systems a lot like the current
> legal protections we have.
The groups are formed anyway. Gang warfare. Warfare in general.
Grouping is the human way. Unless your intelligent, then you have the
means, and the power to do something alone. But your not truley alone,
anyway.
Heres a profound question: Has policing been derived from our
sense of ownership?
If you own something, you feel you control it. But what about copyrights,
and what about legal issues. Do you own it?
The rules try to guide safe practice, and protection. The laws try to
provide fairness. or do they? The governments have sociologists,
they have physicologists on staff. The police have the same. The
military? Yes they do.
Its an extereme example if one wants to take it in that veiw point.
[snip]
>> > Under such a system their is a scramble to demonstrate your lack of
> ability
>> > (except perhaps in the area of determining another persons ability
>> > and hiding yours) and have plenty of needs.
>
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>>
>> Are you talking about the Peter Principle or is this a personal
>> problem?
>>
>
> Personal observation. As an example my mother used to emply a
> cleaning lady. She was on the lookout all the time to increase her
> pension. Her husband lived with her on the sly but she claimed the
> deserted wifes pension and was constantly asking me (because I worked
> for the government) ways she could pulll it off. She was not the only
> one.
Does the government take to much, and not give enough?
>
> Mike Purcell wrote:
>> Do you oppose welfare programs? I know the one we have does not work
>> very well and people should work for their own welfare but it is
>> difficult to predict the amount of welfare an individual will need.
>
> Not in principle. But what I want to see is efficient programs.
>
> For example here in Australia the government gives a subsidy for
> private health insurance even to relatively high income earners like
> myself who can easily afford to pay. These companies have about a 15%
> overhead; a lot of money goes into duplicating the services and
> outlets of other companies and spending on advertising to poach
> members from other companies. Now you would expect competition to
> bring prices down; and in most cases you would be correct. However it
> is not true in this case; government run health insurance has only
> about a 3% overhead. Obviously it would be more efficient to scrub
> private health insurance companies; have only one run by the
> government; force all to belong and only have subsidies for low income
> earners.
>
> The above is just an example. It begs the question of if people
> should be forced to have health insurance; should the government
> subsidise low income earners etc but overall it would achieve better
> more efficient outcomes than the current system. This is what I
> consider one of the most important functions of modern government;
> first to operate efficiently at what they currently do then later look
> at what they should be doing.
This, is very thought provoking, considering the whole world
has some sort of battle with health care. The health care in Canada
is under scruitiny, I hope you don't if I use the ideas that were
presented here.
Ryan
--
Need more time? <http://ryan.alerx.com/cgi-bin/timed.cgi>
Hack the world: <http://ryan.alerx.com/cgi-bin/valuhack.cgi>
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote
>>> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote
>>>> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
>>>>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
>>>>> on shared experiences.
>>
>>>> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
>>>> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
>>>> interaction.
>>
>>> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
>>> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
>>> talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
>>
>> A shared language is, of course, helpful. But learning this shared
>> language starting from different original languages is not a shared
>> experience but a quite different one.
>
> But the language itself is shared and hopefully the meanings of the
> words.
Hopefully. But we are used to live with minor differences in the
meanings of the words.
>>>>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>>
>>>> No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
>>
>>> You have no sympathy for either one?
>>
>> That's not the point, I have not shared that experience. My point is
>> that above participants of this shared experience named rape have
>> probably no sympathy for each other, contrary to the original claim.
>
> Not at all, even though you have not had that particular experience
> you can empathize with and even sympathize with the participants.
Again, you have misunderstood the point of my remark. The point was a
counterexample against the claim "Shared experiences imply a certain
amount of sympathy". IMHO it follows that the shared experience of
rape implies a certain amount of sympathy between the rapist and the
victim, which is IMHO obviously false.
> A rapist does sympathize with their victim if only to enjoy the
> victims feeling of helplessness.
I doubt. But if you insist, you can choose another example where a
common experience leads to hate between all participants. A kills B's
son, B in revenge kills A's son.
> Sympathy is not necessary for a "message" to be understood but it does
> add a lot of meaning. Empathy is being able to put yourself in another
> person's position and is possible because we are all human beings. All
> people have a degree of self-interest with all the logic, instincts,
> and emotions that are involved so all messages between people are
> shaded by a degree of emotion and sympathy is required for a better
> understanding.
If you replace "required" with "helpful" I would agree. But sometimes
too much sympathy leads to misunderstandings as well.
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message news:<i3g7km4...@wias-berlin.de> ...
>> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
>>> and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
>>> regards to other people could achieved it.
>> No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
> What was your "analogy argument"?
People can achieve the emotion "well-fed" without regards to other
people. Nonetheless, it is not an empty emotion.
Why "happiness" becomes empty in this case?
>>>>> Any society requires a balance between individualism and the
>>>>> common good.
>>>> No.
>>> Couldn't think of an argument?
>> I think somebody who claims that something is required should
>> present the arguments.
> You claim that I am wrong without presenting an argument so my claim
> stands.
Claim against claim. Now we have to find out who has the burden of
proof. IMHO it is you.
But I can start with presenting some animal herd as a counterexample.
Animals certainly do not care about common goods. Nonetheless they
cooperate quite successful in herds.
>> I think somebody who make a claim that something is "usually
>> detrimental" should prove it. My self-interest is usually not
>> detrimental to the community.
> I said "pure self-interest" and I qualified it by "usually". I
> notice that you also qualified yourself. And I don't have to prove
> anything (in fact the only things that anyone is able to prove are
> mathematical theorems). Is your self-interest beneficial to the
> community?
It is IMHO more often beneficial than detrimental, far away from being
"usually detrimental".
Mike Purcell
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> > Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote
> >> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> >>> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote
> >>>> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> >>>>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> >>>>> on shared experiences.
>
> >>>> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
> >>>> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
> >>>> interaction.
>
> >>> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
> >>> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
> >>> talking about? A shared language is also helpful.
> >>
> >> A shared language is, of course, helpful. But learning this shared
> >> language starting from different original languages is not a shared
> >> experience but a quite different one.
> >
> > But the language itself is shared and hopefully the meanings of the
> > words.
>
> Hopefully. But we are used to live with minor differences in the
> meanings of the words.
You mean you are use to living with minor differences and you have not
answered my question: What kind of interactions are you talking about?
> >>>>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>
> >>>> No. Think about the experience shared by a rapist and his victim.
>
> >>> You have no sympathy for either one?
> >>
> >> That's not the point, I have not shared that experience. My point is
> >> that above participants of this shared experience named rape have
> >> probably no sympathy for each other, contrary to the original claim.
> >
> > Not at all, even though you have not had that particular experience
> > you can empathize with and even sympathize with the participants.
>
> Again, you have misunderstood the point of my remark. The point was a
> counterexample against the claim "Shared experiences imply a certain
> amount of sympathy". IMHO it follows that the shared experience of
> rape implies a certain amount of sympathy between the rapist and the
> victim, which is IMHO obviously false.
And again you fail to understand the words I am using. A shared
experience is the same experience. I wouldn't call rape a "shared"
experience. My point is that sympathy is a result of experiencing the
same situations so your "counterexamples" are obviously pointless.
> > A rapist does sympathize with their victim if only to enjoy the
> > victims feeling of helplessness.
>
> I doubt. But if you insist, you can choose another example where a
> common experience leads to hate between all participants. A kills B's
> son, B in revenge kills A's son.
>
> > Sympathy is not necessary for a "message" to be understood but it does
> > add a lot of meaning. Empathy is being able to put yourself in another
> > person's position and is possible because we are all human beings. All
> > people have a degree of self-interest with all the logic, instincts,
> > and emotions that are involved so all messages between people are
> > shaded by a degree of emotion and sympathy is required for a better
> > understanding.
>
> If you replace "required" with "helpful" I would agree. But sometimes
> too much sympathy leads to misunderstandings as well.
Sympathy is a shared (the same) emotion but people react to emotions
in different ways. Nonetheless it enables a better understanding.
> > Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message news:<i3g7km4...@wias-berlin.de> ...
> >> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> >>> and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
> >>> regards to other people could achieved it.
>
> >> No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
>
> > What was your "analogy argument"?
>
> People can achieve the emotion "well-fed" without regards to other
> people. Nonetheless, it is not an empty emotion.
>
> Why "happiness" becomes empty in this case?
Because we are talking about human interaction, but if you wish to
compare yourself to an animal you only reinforce my opinion of
individualism.
> >>>>> Any society requires a balance between individualism and the
> >>>>> common good.
>
> >>>> No.
>
> >>> Couldn't think of an argument?
>
> >> I think somebody who claims that something is required should
> >> present the arguments.
>
> > You claim that I am wrong without presenting an argument so my claim
> > stands.
>
> Claim against claim. Now we have to find out who has the burden of
> proof. IMHO it is you.
>
> But I can start with presenting some animal herd as a counterexample.
> Animals certainly do not care about common goods. Nonetheless they
> cooperate quite successful in herds.
>
> >> I think somebody who make a claim that something is "usually
> >> detrimental" should prove it. My self-interest is usually not
> >> detrimental to the community.
>
> > I said "pure self-interest" and I qualified it by "usually". I
> > notice that you also qualified yourself. And I don't have to prove
> > anything (in fact the only things that anyone is able to prove are
> > mathematical theorems). Is your self-interest beneficial to the
> > community?
>
> It is IMHO more often beneficial than detrimental, far away from being
> "usually detrimental".
>
> Ilja
I'm sure that is a matter of opinion but if it is "usually beneficial"
to the community then it is for the common good (I don't mean "trade
goods") and not strictly self-interest.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>>>>>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
>>>>>>> on shared experiences.
>>>>>> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
>>>>>> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
>>>>>> interaction.
>>
>>>>> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
>>>>> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
>>>>> talking about?
Usual (verbal) interactions.
>>>>>>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
> And again you fail to understand the words I am using. A shared
> experience is the same experience. I wouldn't call rape a "shared"
> experience. My point is that sympathy is a result of experiencing the
> same situations
Sympathy may appear for completely different reasons, and I don't
believe that shared experiences lead to sympathy.
>> I doubt. But if you insist, you can choose another example where a
>> common experience leads to hate between all participants. A kills B's
>> son, B in revenge kills A's son.
In this example they share the experience "killing a child".
>>>>> and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
>>>>> regards to other people could achieved it.
>>
>>>> No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
>>
>>> What was your "analogy argument"?
>> People can achieve the emotion "well-fed" without regards to other
>> people. Nonetheless, it is not an empty emotion. Why "happiness"
>> becomes empty in this case?
> Because we are talking about human interaction,
In this particular point we have talked about happiness, not about
human interaction.
> but if you wish to compare yourself to an animal you only reinforce
> my opinion of individualism.
My argument was a logical one. This answer shows only that you are
unable to give a reasonable answer.
>>> I said "pure self-interest" and I qualified it by "usually". I
>>> notice that you also qualified yourself. And I don't have to prove
>>> anything (in fact the only things that anyone is able to prove are
>>> mathematical theorems). Is your self-interest beneficial to the
>>> community?
>> It is IMHO more often beneficial than detrimental, far away from being
>> "usually detrimental".
> I'm sure that is a matter of opinion but if it is "usually beneficial"
> to the community then it is for the common good (I don't mean "trade
> goods") and not strictly self-interest.
It is not, and if you claim otherwise you have to prove it.
Mike Purcell
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) writes:
> >>>>>>> Interaction with other people requires a common ground that is based
> >>>>>>> on shared experiences.
>
> >>>>>> No. A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people because
> >>>>>> they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is not required for
> >>>>>> interaction.
>
> >>>>> But other human beings are required for interaction and they comprise
> >>>>> a large part of that experience. What kind of interaction are you
> >>>>> talking about?
>
> Usual (verbal) interactions.
Requiring a shared language with shared meanings on a shared earth.
> >>>>>>> Shared experiences imply a certain amount of sympathy.
>
> > And again you fail to understand the words I am using. A shared
> > experience is the same experience. I wouldn't call rape a "shared"
> > experience. My point is that sympathy is a result of experiencing the
> > same situations
>
> Sympathy may appear for completely different reasons, and I don't
> believe that shared experiences lead to sympathy.
Sympathy is a shared emotional experience. Look it up in a dictionary.
> >> I doubt. But if you insist, you can choose another example where a
> >> common experience leads to hate between all participants. A kills B's
> >> son, B in revenge kills A's son.
>
> In this example they share the experience "killing a child".
So? Not all shared experiences are emotional.
> >>>>> and happiness would be an empty emotion if the individual without
> >>>>> regards to other people could achieved it.
>
> >>>> No. As well as being well-fed is not an empty emotion.
>
> >>> What was your "analogy argument"?
>
> >> People can achieve the emotion "well-fed" without regards to other
> >> people. Nonetheless, it is not an empty emotion. Why "happiness"
> >> becomes empty in this case?
>
> > Because we are talking about human interaction,
>
> In this particular point we have talked about happiness, not about
> human interaction.
No, I was talking about happiness and you were talking about being well-fed.
> > but if you wish to compare yourself to an animal you only reinforce
> > my opinion of individualism.
>
> My argument was a logical one. This answer shows only that you are
> unable to give a reasonable answer.
Define "logical" and "reasonable". My definitions do not apply to you.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote in message news:<i3git58...@wias-berlin.de> ...
>>>>>>>>> on shared experiences.
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> What kind of interaction are you
>>>>>>> talking about?
>> Usual (verbal) interactions.
> Requiring a shared language with shared meanings on a shared earth.
As I have explained about the "shared earth":
>>>>>>>> A lot of experience is automatically shared by all people
>>>>>>>> because they live on Earth as human beings. But even this is
>>>>>>>> not required for interaction.
If there is no shared language, one has to learn the language of the
other side.
>> Sympathy may appear for completely different reasons, and I don't
>> believe that shared experiences lead to sympathy.
> Sympathy is a shared emotional experience. Look it up in a dictionary.
Your remark has no connection to my remark. BTW, I disagree here too.
I can have sympathy for somebody who hates me. I can have sympathy
for somebody hated by everybody else.
>>>> I doubt. But if you insist, you can choose another example where a
>>>> common experience leads to hate between all participants. A kills B's
>>>> son, B in revenge kills A's son.
>> In this example they share the experience "killing a child".
> So? Not all shared experiences are emotional.
Killing a child is, IMHO, highly emotional.
> Define "logical" and "reasonable".
Not interested.
> My definitions do not apply to you.
Indeed, it seems, we don't share a common language with common
meanings. Nonetheless, we have had some interaction. And it was not
meaningless, at least for me, because I have had some fun.
So, your behaviour is already a counterexample for your claims.
Mike Purcell
> Indeed, it seems, we don't share a common language with common
> meanings. Nonetheless, we have had some interaction. And it was not
> meaningless, at least for me, because I have had some fun.
>
> So, your behaviour is already a counterexample for your claims.
>
> Ilja
Interaction with very little understanding.
Craig
profoundly unhappy life with no real friends to mourn her when she
died. She was admired, worshipped, and "popular" in the most
superficial way. But she was not loved nor seemed capable to giving
love to others. Altogether a wasted life.
While Einstein was beloved as a friend, father, confidant, and
humanitarian. He was not only loved by the public as much for who he
was as a person as he was as a celebrity, but genuinely loved by many
close personal friends. He opened his heart and found it filled.
I always laugh when I see Ayn Rand on someone's bookshelf. She is the
favorite of cold, unemotional people that see her as some kind of role
model.
Hayek
Craig wrote:
I think Mileva would tell you a different story.
Hayek.
--
"March 24, 1933
..panicky German Parliament..
passes..'Enabling Act'..
Germans soon saw gun confiscation,
national identity cards,
racial profiling,
a national security chief (Himmler),
and, later, mass murders and
incarcerations in concentration camps."
tadchem
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3CF5556D...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
<snip repost>
> I think Mileva would tell you a different story.
Try the following:
http://www.objectivism.addr.com/critics/personal.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/ftale.htm
and some 200 other sites listed on Yahoo!
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=shermer+rand+ayn&hc=0&hs=0
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Craig
than I imagined. To think that none of the people that she had spent
her adult life with could think of anything other than what a nasty
little bitch she was.
Jan Bielawski
> I always laugh when I see Ayn Rand on someone's bookshelf. She is the
> favorite of cold, unemotional people
And many teenagers (check the Amazon readers' reviews).
Jan Bielawski
Ryan
news:29b25d31.02052...@posting.google.com:
Its very meaningful interaction.
More interaction, be it constructive communication, is needed.
By and with everyone. Dosn't matter if interaction has answers
that are wrong or right, or even questions that are wrong
or right; The whole essence is provoking thought, which in turn
provokes knowledge and change.
Hence, most of the people responding in this particulur newsgroup,
by and large, have mediocre minds. Hence, they only know what they
were taught, and they use the advantage of one thing:
They use the thought of lurkers who consider, that since this person
is apart of this newsgroup, that they must be intelligent.
<sales pitch>
Original thought is one of those most profound things, that change the
the world. To those that think original thoughts, I say keep it up
and ignore the flak you will get. You cannot battle it, you can ignore
it, and those who "think, ponder, and consider", will still consider
your writings.
</sales pitch>
True. Exactly True.
When I get hyper, the people around me get hyper too. But there
might be more energy focused on me, then I realize.
Whatever you want to think, or feel. Theres still knowledge to be gained,
from the people around you. If they tell you something, generally it
might not be for sympathy. They might only want to share a situation,
from which you might learn from. At any rate, the above sales pitch,
works. It all depends on your state of mind, sharing is not a bad thing.
>
>> > > > I am not saying that complete sympathy is required but each
>> > > > side needs to be able to see the other's point of view if any
>> > > > successful negotiation or cooperation is to be achieved.
>> > >
>> > > To understand the message of the other person (which may be
>> > > something like "money or life") no amount of sympathy is
>> > > necessary.
>> >
>> > I sympathize with those messages and I think they are necessary.
>>
>> Again I think you confuse empathy with sympathy. Sympathy involves
>> associating with another's thoughts by experiencing the same emotions
>> with them. Empathy simply involves understanding their thoughts and
>> feelings by your own experience with them and their causes... one
>> requires a bit of humanity, the other can be applied for good as well
>> as the most sinister and depraved acts.
>
> What we have here is a difference of degree. In your own definitions
> what is the difference between "experiencing the same emotions" and
> "understanding their feelings"? Sympathy is a higher order of empathy,
> what you choose to do with this is up to you, you can ignore it
> (common), you can turn it ("sinister and depraved"), or you can accept
> it (normal, like me (-; ).
Or you can learn from it. You can also teach.
>
>> It HELPS an argument if both sides understand eachother. But in the
>> end they only have to have the fact of what the other wants. That
>> requires no empathy of any sort, just pure calculation.
>
> Sure understanding helps, in fact I believe that should be the purpose
> of argument. And it would be nice if everyone was always logical but
> not very realistic. Empathy is unavoidable between human beings and
> sympathy enables a better understanding.
If both sides argue, then both sides do not understand each other,
hence the argument. Each side is trying to show the other side,
that their argument is correct. If one side listened first,
then understanding might be gained.
The common comes from ego. Ego is murdering yourself, and Ego
inversly affects the knowledge one can gain. Look around, you see
is every where.
>> > It's your problem as well if you want something from someone else
>> > but you are right that everyone has some degree of self-intrest.
>> > How else could we sympathize?
>>
>> Again, you're talking empathy, not sympathy. I think that's the main
>> cause of the argument, because changing that one word completely
>> alters it's point.
>
> Arguing over the definitions of words is a little anal retentive but
> as I said "a shared language is also helpful" for meaningful
> interaction.
Theres is a shared language, though your sharing it with anal
retentive people.
> Which is why I have tried to use your definitions, all I
> ask is that you try to understand my use of words.
Your use of the word. What happened to a shared language?
> And I don't think
> it changes my point, which is an "interpretation" of the original post
> of this thread:
> "But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one
> exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles
> and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the
> many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of
> sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and
> outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and
> that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I
> have received and am still receiving..."
Maybe you exist to interact with other people. Maybe your existence,
is only your existence, from which you can be anything you want. The very
worst thing you can do, is not allow someone to make a choice. THe best
thing you can do is teach someone, and then allow them to make a choice.
Ryan.
Mike Purcell
> > Which is why I have tried to use your definitions, all I
> > ask is that you try to understand my use of words.
> Your use of the word. What happened to a shared language?
Nothing, most words have more than one meaning and we need to agree on
the meanings. Language is one thing, using a language to describe
thoughts, ideas, and concepts is another. Sometimes nonverbal
communication such as "body language" is more helpful in understanding
what another person is thinking but this also requires a degree of
sympathy to interpret. I believe that we can not truly understand the
thoughts of another person and the closest we can get is by
experiencing the same emotional responses. A purely informative
message (an intellectual meaning) lacks emphasis and personal meaning
(meaningful interaction) while poetry makes the best use of words to
communicate emotion.
Ryan
> Ryan <ryt...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns921F7163DCD6ry...@198.80.55.250>...
>> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) wrote in
>> news:29b25d31.02052...@posting.google.com:
>
>> > Which is why I have tried to use your definitions, all I
>> > ask is that you try to understand my use of words.
>
>> Your use of the word. What happened to a shared language?
>
> Nothing, most words have more than one meaning and we need to agree on
> the meanings. Language is one thing, using a language to describe
> thoughts, ideas, and concepts is another.
Well, I feel if theres multi meanings to a word, then all the
meanings count.
> Sometimes nonverbal
> communication such as "body language" is more helpful in understanding
> what another person is thinking but this also requires a degree of
> sympathy to interpret.
Sure. but in a place like this ( the net ), all you have are words;
and a very little body language, if any.
But even the body language can be purposly manipulated
in many respects to "incurage" a certain prospective.
> I believe that we can not truly understand the
> thoughts of another person and the closest we can get is by
> experiencing the same emotional responses.
Not really, you can understand through considering the dilemmas,
and the "vector of choice", as well as, the personal emotions
of the situation; In how someone might feel, and also how why
a person maybe be making the choice they did/are.
The emotional responces can change. And some can be altered to
protray something else. Eg: strength.
> A purely informative
> message (an intellectual meaning) lacks emphasis and personal meaning
> (meaningful interaction)
Information should have emotional meaning, and emphasis, mainly becouse
all Information is processed in a personal manner. I'm not meaning
use alot of "i,you, we, us", but the emotion can be in the form
of drawings, models and of course technical explainations.
Of course, if your reading something, and you make the voice
in your head go slow and monotone, then of course
thats how your gonna interpet the writtings.
However, one can think also, that certian words may attract
various peopl.
> while poetry makes the best use of words to
> communicate emotion.
Poetry has alot of emotion. Though its also a word game, and poetry
also can mean many different things.
Ryan
Mike Purcell
> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) wrote in
> news:29b25d31.02053...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Ryan <ryt...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns921F7163DCD6ry...@198.80.55.250>...
> >> sacs...@rsvl.net (Mike Purcell) wrote in
> >> news:29b25d31.02052...@posting.google.com:
>
> >> > Which is why I have tried to use your definitions, all I
> >> > ask is that you try to understand my use of words.
>
> >> Your use of the word. What happened to a shared language?
> >
> > Nothing, most words have more than one meaning and we need to agree on
> > the meanings. Language is one thing, using a language to describe
> > thoughts, ideas, and concepts is another.
> Well, I feel if theres multi meanings to a word, then all the
> meanings count.
Sure they do and then some, but which meaning are you using? What do
you mean?
> > Sometimes nonverbal
> > communication such as "body language" is more helpful in understanding
> > what another person is thinking but this also requires a degree of
> > sympathy to interpret.
> Sure. but in a place like this ( the net ), all you have are words;
> and a very little body language, if any.
>
> But even the body language can be purposly manipulated
> in many respects to "incurage" a certain prospective.
"All the world's a stage" and the award goes to the most convincing
thespian. But there is a deeper understanding of motivation that
separates reality from acting. The net has emoticons as well as words,
the words we use and the order in which we place them communicates
more than just the meanings of the words.
> > I believe that we can not truly understand the
> > thoughts of another person and the closest we can get is by
> > experiencing the same emotional responses.
> Not really, you can understand through considering the dilemmas,
> and the "vector of choice", as well as, the personal emotions
> of the situation; In how someone might feel, and also how why
> a person maybe be making the choice they did/are.
Yes but we can understand more with emotion and a situation than by
just the situation. Personal emotions determine the relative import of
the choices.
> The emotional responces can change. And some can be altered to
> protray something else. Eg: strength.
Everything changes, fear can be masked by anger but the basic fear
remains.
> > A purely informative
> > message (an intellectual meaning) lacks emphasis and personal meaning
> > (meaningful interaction)
> Information should have emotional meaning, and emphasis, mainly becouse
> all Information is processed in a personal manner. I'm not meaning
> use alot of "i,you, we, us", but the emotion can be in the form
> of drawings, models and of course technical explainations.
Emotional technical explanations? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
> Of course, if your reading something, and you make the voice
> in your head go slow and monotone, then of course
> thats how your gonna interpet the writtings.
You can interpret them anyway you like despite the voices in your
head, question is are you interpreting them the way they were meant?
> However, one can think also, that certian words may attract
> various peopl.
I find it interesting that in these newsgroups derogatory words seem
to attract more responses. You would think the opposite. I see it as a
pack mentality that falls on the weak or perhaps it's just an
emotional release, a virtual increase in self esteem.
> > while poetry makes the best use of words to
> > communicate emotion.
> Poetry has alot of emotion. Though its also a word game, and poetry
> also can mean many different things.
There you go, poetry has a different meaning for each person. The game
is determining what it means for another person.
cklages
sentence... Now trying to figure out why anyone even remembers who she is or
reads her books and calls them 'philosophy'.
"Ayn Rand couldn't stand me, so she banned me!" Kid Rock, apparently even
he has heard of her! *LOL*
Arthur
Painius
read _Atlas Shrugged_? One of the few i couldn't put down until
finished.
As for a connection between Einstein and Rand, get away from
his science and study Einstein more personally. In fact, Albert
and Ayn are *both* facinating studies.
--
Indelibly yours, (dulce et decorum est pro astra)
Painius
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/
oxo
"cklages" <ckl...@golden.net> wrote...
opium RNA doll
> "Ayn Rand couldn't stand me, so she banned me!" Kid Rock, apparently even
> he has heard of her! *LOL*
Could you tell me where this quote comes from? I was skimming through
posts when I all of a sudden noticed my favorite author and favorite
musician in one sentence. What a delight!
--
Domino Plural <kidrock @ gehennom.net>
Go ask Alice. Alice Rosenbaum.
tadchem
"opium RNA doll" <kid...@gehennom.net> wrote in message
news:afvpn0$ld2$2...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> In sci.physics.relativity cklages <ckl...@golden.net> wrote:
> > "Ayn Rand couldn't stand me, so she banned me!" Kid Rock, apparently
even
> > he has heard of her! *LOL*
>
> Could you tell me where this quote comes from? I was skimming through
> posts when I all of a sudden noticed my favorite author and favorite
> musician in one sentence. What a delight!
Learn to use search engines, moron.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22Ayn+Rand+
couldn%27t+stand+me%2C+so+she+banned+me%22&btnG=Google+Search
Ayn Rand was L. Ron Hubbard in a skirt!
It wouldn't hurt you to read some REAL authors and listen to a more eclectic
selection of music, either.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
DangerDave
go out of your way to be a rude son-of-a-bitch to them. Who pissed in your
Cheerios? Relax.
Danger.
"tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zfMU8.117$U4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
JosephShore23
>From: "DangerDave" Dange...@attbi.NOSPAM.com
>Date: 07/03/02 10:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <DeOU8.76891$Uu2.13098@sccrnsc03>
>
>Geez, Tom, you're a real asshole. A person asks a simple question, and you
>go out of your way to be a rude son-of-a-bitch to them. Who pissed in your
>Cheerios? Relax.
>
>Danger.
>
JS
tadchem
"DangerDave" <Dange...@attbi.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:DeOU8.76891$Uu2.13098@sccrnsc03...
> Geez, Tom, you're a real asshole. A person asks a simple question, and
you
> go out of your way to be a rude son-of-a-bitch to them. Who pissed in
your
> Cheerios? Relax.
I am more than an asshole. I am a well-read asshole.
http://www.objectivism.addr.com/critics/personal.html
http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/books/summary/aaprAtheismRand.htm
I am also, by most definitions, either an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist,
or some combination thereof.
If asked my religion I will say I'm Irish and a Jeffersonian
Constitutionalist. I worship the Bill of Rights.
I feel the Living Goddess Ayn Rand gives Atheism a bad name.
L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology exactly what Rand has done with
Objectivism - built a cult of personality that tolerates no variance or
dissent and rigidly enforces conformity among the initiates.
Both of them have pissed in my Cheerios.
Kid Rock is another commercially packaged noise-maker. IMO, he isn't worthy
to hold a candle to Sting. If he sticks to his lessons and learns to play
music for the love of music, that may change.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
tadchem
you
> go out of your way to be a rude son-of-a-bitch to them. Who pissed in
your
> Cheerios? Relax.
>
> Danger.
*He* crossposted a question about Ayn Rand and Kid Rock to the groups
alt.sci.physics,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy,
(How off-topic can you get??) and you are calling *me* an asshole? Why?
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Harry Conover
> > "Ayn Rand couldn't stand me, so she banned me!" Kid Rock, apparently even
> > he has heard of her! *LOL*
>
> Could you tell me where this quote comes from? I was skimming through
> posts when I all of a sudden noticed my favorite author and favorite
> musician in one sentence. What a delight!
While it strains me to even to think about the mental state of anyone
who considers Ann Rand to be their favorite author, the though that
somehow that same person would consider 'Kid Rock' to be a musician
somehow seems strangely appropriate.
John Galt
Painius
Who the fuck is John Galt?
> Atlas
--
Indelibly yours, (dulce et decorum est pro astra)
Painius
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/
oxo
"Harry Conover" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ce4e226.02070...@posting.google.com...
Ilja Schmelzer
> Now trying to figure out why anyone even remembers who she is or
> reads her books and calls them 'philosophy'.
I'm not reading her books, but I remember who she is and call
objectivism a philosophy. A false one, but useful as an illustration
of certain errors.
opium RNA doll
> Learn to use search engines, moron.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22Ayn+Rand+
> couldn%27t+stand+me%2C+so+she+banned+me%22&btnG=Google+Search
weird, I've listened to that song countless times and for some reason
I never noticed that line.
--
Domino Plural <kidrock @ gehennom.net>
"If it looks good, you'll see it; if it sounds good, you'll hear it;
if it's marketed right, you'll buy it; but if it's real...
you'll feel it." - Kid Rock
opium RNA doll
> Objectivism - built a cult of personality that tolerates no variance or
> dissent and rigidly enforces conformity among the initiates.
No, Leonard Piekoff did that. Ayn Rand did no such thing.
> Both of them have pissed in my Cheerios.
You could have put down the book any time, you know; but I suppose
then you wouldn't have been able to fill your attention-starved
need to throw a hissy fit over it.
--
Domino Plural <kidrock @ gehennom.net>
"When you idiot-proof society, you get a society of idiots"
- Winston Churchill
Nomen Nescio
And when you don't idiot proof society you get threads like this one
could you bunch of boring bastards remove alt.astronomy from your
fucking useless posts please.
--
FunkyMunky
Well if that ain't the Minpot calling the kettle black...
Chosp
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:a7d89ff4e226c3c2...@dizum.com...
> And when you don't idiot proof society you get threads like this one
> could you bunch of boring bastards remove alt.astronomy from your
> fucking useless posts please.
Min, you are the most useless of them all,
you pathetic, hypocritical sleaze.
Quit crossposting to sci.astro.
RALPH HERTLE
USENET rules permit a maximum of three simultaneous
postings, or cross postings.
It does, however, seem to be the height of Post
Modernist and Nihilist idiocy to cross post useless
flaming arguments that are no doubt loaded with
intellectual self doubt. To display one's intellectual
inadequacies and neuroses is extremely insulting and
disrespectful to one's scientific and otherwise
rational public audience.
Ralph Hertle
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Nomen Nescio
"Chosp" <ch...@cox.net> writes:
I'm not DJM you stupid man. This thread makes Min's posts
look interesting!.
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Silverlight
<ralph....@verizon.net> writes
>Chosp:
>
>USENET rules permit a maximum of three simultaneous
>postings, or cross postings.
>
I thought you believed that Usenet (CAPITALS are shouting, which is
frowned on) had no rules, or at least none you need obey.
My newsreader will notify me when I cross post to 5 groups, but seems
happy with four.
Greg Macdonald
<jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3D24CBB5...@verizon.net>, RALPH HERTLE
><ralph....@verizon.net> writes
>>Chosp:
>>
>>USENET rules permit a maximum of three simultaneous
>>postings, or cross postings.
>>
>
>I thought you believed that Usenet (CAPITALS are shouting, which is
>frowned on)
USENET is the original spelling of the short form of 'User's Network'.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Life is just one damned thing after another.
-Elbert Hubbard
gmacdo...@SPAMBEGONEcogeco.ca
RALPH HERTLE
Would you say that either USENET or Usenet would
be grammatically correct depending upon the context?
Ralph Hertle
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Greg Macdonald wrote:
[ excerpt ]
FunkyMunky
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Chosp:
>
>USENET rules permit a maximum of three simultaneous
>postings, or cross postings.
>
>It does, however, seem to be the height of Post
>Modernist and Nihilist idiocy to cross post useless
>flaming arguments that are no doubt loaded with
>intellectual self doubt. To display one's intellectual
>inadequacies and neuroses is extremely insulting and
>disrespectful to one's scientific and otherwise
>rational public audience.
>
>Ralph Hertle
>
<<snip>>
Seems just about as idiodic to post a response that is an obvious
attempt at demonstrating one's vocabulary. "Nihilist"? What a bunch
of crap. Why don't you go marry a 20 year-old bimbo so that you can
impress someone for real.
>
FunkyMunky
Yes, you are Min. We've been reading crap from Daniel Joseph Min
under the name of Nomen Nescio for over two weeks now. The only
stupid person here is you--the guy who thinks that others are stupid
enough not to notice something so obvious. And while you're giving
advice about appropriate posting, why don't you keep your
astrology/prophecy/crap off of sci.astro?
Bill Nelson
news:a7d89ff4e226c3c2...@dizum.com...
> And when you don't idiot proof society you get threads like this one
> could you bunch of boring bastards remove alt.astronomy from your
> fucking useless posts please.
Hm, we now know what to do with min posts to the newsgroups. Delete all
the newsgroups except for alt.astronomy. Or, if he does not include the
group in his post - replace the ones he does include with alt.astronomy.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Nomen Nescio
pf...@funkenstein.foo (FunkyMunky) writes:
LOL, if anyones stupid here it isnt me, and I strongly suspect you
will be reading Min's posts for a long time to come. There are lots
and lots of people posting with NOMEN NESCIO in their headers, see
if you can figure it out stupid!.
--
RALPH HERTLE
psychology on alt.astronomy?
Ralph Hertle
.......................
Greg Macdonald
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Greg:
>
>Would you say that either USENET or Usenet would
>be grammatically correct depending upon the context?
>
>Ralph Hertle
Yes, since the original spelling was USENET. Most people use the
mixed-case spelling now, but that doesn't make the original wrong, nor
does it violate the 'no capitals' rule. All IMHO, of course.
FunkyMunky
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
Nice try dumbass. I didn't say that you, Min, were the one and only
Nomen Nescio in the NGs. I said that you, Min, started using the name
to post your bullshit over two weeks ago. There's a much more
accurate and reliable method to determine that you are Min--rather
than going by some fictitious alias. Why don't you see if you can
figure that one out, stupid.
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nomen Nescio
pf...@funkenstein.foo (FunkyMunky) writes:
You still don't get it do you.
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Bennett Standeven
You forgot to include Min's PGP key...
FunkyMunky
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
Then what's this?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:10:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>To get your true judicial horoscope, simply post the date,
>time and place that you were born... but only if you dare.
>I can even show you what planet your soul is from. Try my
>readings. Skeptics, atheists, antechrist, all are welcome.
>
>Very Truly Yours,
>Daniel Joseph Min
>(yes, I'm a real min)
>
>*Major Arcana - Exact Planet & Sign Correspondences:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=PPVRXIDS3742...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
>
>*Min's Star Charts Homepage:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5J8CPSQ83741...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>iQA/AwUBPQqfXJljD7YrHM/nEQKQ7QCfY0jtm14xeJEONRZ9L8lC6f1Awa4An011
>7QmLULFCNNK84jpR7S1c3CS0
>=Luoi
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nomen Nescio
pf...@funkenstein.foo (FunkyMunky) writes:
Gee that's a toughie.....looks like one of DJM's posts to me
with his pgp sig attached!
What's this?.....Anonymous Remailer...dizum.com
How many fingers am I holding up to you?.
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:10:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >To get your true judicial horoscope, simply post the date,
> >time and place that you were born... but only if you dare.
> >I can even show you what planet your soul is from. Try my
> >readings. Skeptics, atheists, antechrist, all are welcome.
> >
> >Very Truly Yours,
> >Daniel Joseph Min
> >(yes, I'm a real min)
> >
> >*Major Arcana - Exact Planet & Sign Correspondences:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=PPVRXIDS3742...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
> >
> >*Min's Star Charts Homepage:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5J8CPSQ83741...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
> >
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >iQA/AwUBPQqfXJljD7YrHM/nEQKQ7QCfY0jtm14xeJEONRZ9L8lC6f1Awa4An011
> >7QmLULFCNNK84jpR7S1c3CS0
> >=Luoi
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Painius
I agree with you, Greg. Personally, i like to use "UseNet" when i
refer to the entire family of newsgroups. And i agree that usage of
all caps, as in USENET, does not violate the YELL rule (unless it's
used with other fully capitalized words as in...
WE LOVE USENET
When we speak of violations, though, it may be good to say that
there are times when yelling is appropriate, as in...
RALPH !!!! PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING EVERY FUCKING
LETTER IN YOUR NAME WHEN YOU POST.
THANK YOU.
And in text-only groups, we may also say that one can use asterisks
(*) and underlines (_) to denote bolding and italicizing, as in...
Italics:
Don't you just love Carl Sagan's book, _The Cosmic Connection_?
Bold:
Isn't Mr. Hertle just *too* much?
So sorry, but i saw the subject header and figured Karen was
talking about _me_ *again*. <<< G >>>
Chosp
> You still don't get it do you.
What's to get, troll?
TMG
wrote:
>>
>>You still don't get it do you.
>>
>>> >--
>Then what's this?
>
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:10:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
><nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
OK - it's gone on long enough. Go to google and type:
"Nomen Nescio" remailer
and read.
Nomen Nescio
"Chosp" <ch...@cox.net> writes:
Oh you tart. I got loads and loads of recipes here, hundreds
of them, I would like your opinion in sci.astro as to wether
they could actualy be cooked in space eventualy, so i'll
post them for you all to read in sci.astro, Like would asparagus
still keep it's flavour if cooked in space?.
TIA.
>
>
--
Chosp
Useless.
>Plonk>
RALPH HERTLE
You say:
[ text omitted ]
> RALPH !!!! PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING EVERY FUCKING
> LETTER IN YOUR NAME WHEN YOU POST.
>
> THANK YOU.
[ text omitted ]
ok
tadchem
"RALPH HERTLE" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D275820...@verizon.net...
To RALPH HERTLE:
You are guilty of a deliberate distortion, excising a comment out of
context, to wit: an example, without benefit of the explication that
attended it.
Painius (you also mis-spelled his name!) actually said:
> When we speak of violations, though, it may be good to say that
> there are times when yelling is appropriate, as in...
>
> RALPH !!!! PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING EVERY FUCKING
> LETTER IN YOUR NAME WHEN YOU POST.
>
> THANK YOU.
Evidently you failed to comprehend the content of the comment.
You could learn a little from e e cummings.
You appear to want people to notice your name. Your lack of etiquette is
making you even more noticeable than SHOUTING your name, to the point I am
tempted to program my software to automatically ignore anything you post.
In MS Outlook, from the newsreader window pull down the File menu, click on
Identities, and then Manage Identities. Double-click on "RALPH HERTLE" and
a new window will pop up. You can then type in "Ralph Hertle" or something
else less obnoxious than "RALPH HERTLE", click OK, and then Close.
Do this right away, before you post anything else anywhere.
This is guaranteed to help you find new friends.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
RALPH HERTLE
Though not for the reasons that you propose,
I would otherwise agree that my sender's name
would be better spelled in caps and lower case.
I tried to set my setup accordingly, however,
it persists in providing all caps.
I even tried to omit my name, and that persists
as well. Bad luck.....
In the future I will however reply to you only
on alt.astronomy, and that will help to prevent
your email Inbox from getting totally multiplied
with posts from all the respondents who reply to you.
Ralph Hertle
...................................
Painius wrote:
> [ TEXT OMITTED ]
> RALPH !!!! PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING EVERY FUCKING
> LETTER IN YOUR NAME WHEN YOU POST.
>
> THANK YOU.
> [ TEXT OMITTED ]
Darren
> > RALPH !!!! PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING EVERY FUCKING
> > LETTER IN YOUR NAME WHEN YOU POST.
> >
> > THANK YOU.
does that offend you? well using profanities are something I don't want my
children reading on an all ages newsgroup like this one
The Commentator
What a wanker...
Plonk.
Painius
>
> does that offend you? well using profanities are something I don't want my
> children reading on an all ages newsgroup like this one
'Lo Darren --
No, yelling does not offend me. It just sometimes affects me in
the same way that scraping chalk across a blackboard affects me.
I was just playin' with Ralph, though, because i know he is on a
learning curve with NetScape (been there, done that), and also
because he seems like an interesting playmate. I love it when he
calls me names <g>.
You, however, have raised another interesting issue. Cussing in
newsgroups, i.e. the use of expletives, has been pretty common
since the inception of UseNet. The issue has been raised before
with bandaid outcomes like using the asterisk for vowels as in...
d*mn and h*ll
As you may see, this looks pretty stupid. So i made up my mind
long ago that, if i'm going to cuss, then i'm *not* using asterisks
for vowels.
Since you raised this issue, let's talk about it. There is a wide
range of ideas that center on this issue. At one end of the spectrum
is the idea of "Freedom of Speech." At the other end is the right
to protect innocent children from foul-mouthed idiots and morons.
Somewhere in the middle is the behavior of the children when
grownups (especially their parents) aren't around. I believe you
have said that you live in Australia? Maybe it's different there,
but kids here in the US just *love* to cuss when their parents
can't hear them. It's common to go to Denny's Restaurant any
given late evening and sit next to a table of teenagers ranging in
age from 14 to 17 and to hear the "eff" word coming out of their
mouths frequently (along with other choice profanities). And this
is mixed boys and girls, with the girls cussing right along with the
boys.
When i was a small boy, about ten, my father took me to a bar.
Of course, i couldn't go in so i had to stay outside and wait for
him in the car. The owner of the bar had a daughter a little older
than me named Polly. The owner sent Polly out to the car to
keep me company while Dad was inside the bar. We talked
about lots of things, and then out she came with, "Do you
sware?" This led to talking about cussing and such, and then to
the both of us sitting there and saying and yelling every cuss
word we knew for over an hour. We actually were out of
breath when we calmed down! The experience was sort of
euphoric, as if a great weight was lifted from my shoulders.
I tell you this because i've spoken with many people who
have had similar experiences. When i was older, my uncle
hired me in his car repair garage. He let me cuss around him
and never "told on me." I still remember him as my favorite
uncle for this and many other reasons. It seemed important
to be able to sware in front of a trusted grownup.
Anyway, Darren, i could have given you my standard, "They
are just pixels on a screen," just idiotic tasteless words that i
sometimes use to emphasize a written idea. But instead i have
rambled on as i often do. I apologize to you for these offensive
aspects of my nature. It's just me... just idiotic, droll, imperfect
me.
ob alt.astronomy -- I mentioned pulsars and black holes to a
woman of color the other day, and she slapped me!
Painius
--
Indelibly yours, (dulce et decorum est pro astra)
Painius
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/
oxo
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote...
>
> pf...@funkenstein.foo (FunkyMunky) writes:
Hey Funk -- you havin' a gender crisis? Why don't you do what you
say is so easy to do? Even the damn writing style is different. But
then, i'm no expert.
YO! Knomen! Is Oik an enless piglet call? <smootch>