Critical Realism [very long]
Michael Straight
On 24 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > On 23 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> > > Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> > > with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> > > loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> > > a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> > > appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
> >
> > Actually, the people I'm thinking of (except maybe in the last
> > sentence) are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out
> > that what generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not
> > really boil down to "baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you
> > suggest. There's a truly beautiful proof of this that I can't fit
> > in the margin here (that is to say, I'd need to re-read a couple of
> > books to really talk about this).
>
> Um, I _am_ a critical rationalist. :)
Are you sure "critical rationalism" is the same as "critical realism"?
Compare and see! Here's an overview summarized from two books I highly
recommend, _Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science
and Religion_ by Ian G. Barbour and _Intimations of Reality: Critical
Realism in Science and Religion_ by Arthur Peacocke (stuff you probably
already know included for the viewers at home):
In the 50's and earlier, the objectivity of science was defended by three
claims: (1) that science uses data that can be described objectively
without any theoretical assumptions, (2) theories are verified or
falsified by comparing them with data, therefore, (3) the choice between
theories is based on rational, objective criteria.
In the 60's, these three assertions were challenged by people who argued
that (1) all data are theory-laden, (2) data which conflicts with an
accepted theory is usually laid aside as an anomaly, (3) there are no
general, objective criteria for choosing between rival theories -- the
criteria themselves rely on the same network of theories.
These critiques were extended by a very influential book, _The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ by Thomas Kuhn (whom I can't hope to
do justice to in a few sentences) which argued that science is directed by
"paradigms" which include a network of theories about an area of study as
well as the accepted methods for generating new knowledge in that area.
Kuhn argued that since the paradigm is what tells you what data are
relevant and how you should evaluate them, you can't use logical argument
to choose between paradigms, and that while you can give good reasons for
your choice, a change in paradigms is really more like a "conversion" or a
"gestalt switch."
In the 70's, some philosophers of science went so far as to argue that
scientific knowledge is shaped as much or more by sociological forces as
the phenomena that science is trying to study. "Scientific knowledge
offers an account of the physical world which is mediated through
available cultural resources...The physical world could be analyzed
perfectly adequately by means of language and presuppositions quite
different from those employed in the modern scientific community. There
is, therefore, nothing in the physical world which uniquely determines the
conclusions of that community" (M. Mulkay, quoted by Peacocke, p. 20).
These may be the folks you were referring to above as "subjectivists."
Critical realism [finally] takes seriously some of Kuhn's insights and
acknowledges we can't go back to the "naive realism" of the 50's, but
offers a qualified argument that science is describing an objective
reality outside of itself. Barbour formulates it this way:
First, all data are theory-laden, but rival theories are not
incommensurable...Second, comprehensive theories are highly resistant
to falsification, but observation does exert some control over them...
Third, there are no rules for choice between research programmes, but
there are independent criteria of assessment (Barbour, pp 113-115).
Barbour and Peacocke both argue that one consequence of this qualified
description of science is the realization that, as ways of knowing the
universe, science and religion differ in degree of objectivity, rather
than in kind.
Even within science, there are degrees of resistance to falsification,
with paradigms and metaphysical assumptions most resistant but by no
means totally invulnerable in the long run to cumulative empirical
evidence. I would assign scientific paradigms a position near the
middle of the 'falsifiability' spectrum - not at the extreme of
'objectivity'...Religious paradigms I would assign towards the
'subjective' or 'unfalsifiable' end of the spectrum, because of the
influence of interpretation on experience - but not at the extreme of
'subjectivity' (Barbour, pp. 132-133).
The following longer excerpt from Peacocke particularly addresses some of
the original issues raised by Jaffo:
According to the thesis already elaborated, referring successfully to an
entity, say an electron, can be achieved by affirming that one is
referring to that which causes (say) this galvanometer needle to be
deflected. And this can be achieved without knowing what electrons are
"in themselves." Given the parallels between the use of models and
metaphors in scientific and theological language, it seems to me to be
equally legitimate to affirm that God can be "that which causes this
particular experience now (or in the past) in me (or in others)." The
more recurrent and widespread the experiences in question, the more
secure the reference, and so the reality, of that which is referred to.
However, the dissemination of such recognition of the validity of the
God-reference in individuals experience can only be slow, with much
sifting and attestation, because any one individual's claim can always
be contested.
Hence the kind of critical theological realism we have been developing
places at the center past and present religious experience, the
continuous community, and an interpretive tradition. Reference is
grounded in the seminal, initiating experiences of individuals and
communities when references to God were first made in the "introducing
events" -- and the community then, and continuously since, provides the
links of referential usage and repeated and new experiences that enable
us today to refer to what the initiators referred to, even though we may
have revised our models through continuous reinterpretation
("development of doctrine"). In that process of initiation and
reinterpretation, some individuals and communities will command assent,
acquire authority, more than others -- by virtue of their presence at
the initial, introducing, referring event(s) or experience, by virtue
of their intellectual preeminence in the interpretive process of more
widespread and universal experiences through the ages, and by virtue of
the men and women they were and are. Through such transmitted
experience, all can participate in the special, definitive experiences
of God of the few and, once these have been made communally accessible,
they become available as a resource for all. This general assent
continues only if current experiences of at least some of the members
of the community continue to be congruent with the earlier ones
(Peacocke, pp. 46-47).
In other words, religious experience (including mysticism) is not judged
in a vacuum but as part of a continuing community that is grounded in some
extraordinary historical events (for Christians, the exodus from Egypt,
the life of Jesus, the proclamation of his resurrection by the early
church). Mystics are judged by the quality of their lives, by how well
their experience fits in with other religious experiences and with these
seminal events.
This process, while different from science in some ways, also has many
similarities with the way the scientific community functions and is really
only more subjective by degree rather than by being in some separate
"subjective" category from "objective" science.
> Have been for a long time, but didn't find out the formal title for
> my philosophy until someone said "Y'know, you sound like Karl
> Popper", and I went "Karl who?" and proceeded to buy and devour a
> bunch of his books. I consider it a point of pride that I came to
> so many of the same conclusions he did independently.
Barbour responds to Popper in a few places. Popper seems to want to
defend a more traditional view of science's objectivity and
falsifiability. Barbour says, "Popper's view has in turn received
considerable criticism. Discordant data do not always falsify a theory.
One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a 'crucial
experiment'; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one
cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the
deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations
is always tested together."
I wrote about Plantinga:
> > I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
> > Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his
> > beliefs. He would argue that he has good reasons for believing in
> > God but that those reasons are not the sort of thing that you can
> > turn into a "proof."
Jason replied:
> Here we get into the question of what constitutes a "good" reason.
> If your reasons cannot be formulated as a logical proof, by what
> standard can they said to be good?
>
> (And yes, that is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. I just
> want to see if you do, or how you will state it.)
I don't know exactly how Plantinga would define a "good" reason, but I can
give some examples. We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like
it does today. There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't
suddenly start attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like
since the universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Barbour lists some of the data that can be explained by religious models:
feelings of awe and reverence, experiences of mystical unity, moral
obligation, reorientation and reconciliation, experience of God in
personal relationships, key historical events, order and creativity in the
world. Barbour writes, "I am not claiming that moral and religious
experience or particular historical events can constitute a proof for the
existence of a personal God. I am only saying that it is reasonable to
interpret them theistically and that it makes a difference whether one
does so or not" (Barbour, pp 56-57).
I asked:
> > What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Jason replied:
> Independent of the mind. Verifiable.
>
> Philosophies are ideas, so they can't exactly be independent of the
> mind. However, philosophy isn't just a mental game. It can be based
> on verifiable premises, and a philosophy can be tested by observing
> whether its application yields desirable results.
>
> Philosophy practiced in this way has a lot of similarities to a
> science, and it's no coincidence that critical rationalism deals
> quite a lot with the philosophy _of_ science.
I would really recommend that you at least look at Barbour's book, which
is a more thorough treatment of these ideas. My impression is that your
formulation is still somewhat naive (and I don't mean that in the
condescending sense, but as a historical category) which might not bear up
to the critiques of Kuhn and others. I've about reached the limit of my
understanding of this topic in this post. I'd have to re-read Kuhn and
some other things to really try to pick at your formulation of
"verifiable" and how it compares with religion in terms of objectivity.
If you've read this far, Michael Straight thinks you deserve a cookie.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
It goes, without saying, that science cannot be perfectly
objective. But I'd be careful before StanleyFishing it
too much. The Math involved is relatively objective; it's
the assumptions for which equations to use, and when, that
we can question.
The subjectivity of science is countered by our faith in
bridges, airplanes, this very medium we communicate through.
Science passes the police baton test with great regularity.
It is the cutting edge of science, especially astrophysics
and quantum physics (finally colliding, good thing to)
where you have more of a point.
> In the 70's, some philosophers of science went so far as to argue that
> scientific knowledge is shaped as much or more by sociological forces as
> the phenomena that science is trying to study. "Scientific knowledge
> offers an account of the physical world which is mediated through
> available cultural resources...The physical world could be analyzed
> perfectly adequately by means of language and presuppositions quite
> different from those employed in the modern scientific community. There
> is, therefore, nothing in the physical world which uniquely determines the
> conclusions of that community" (M. Mulkay, quoted by Peacocke, p. 20).
> These may be the folks you were referring to above as "subjectivists."
To what extent this matters I'm not sure I care. Different
models would probably turn out to be equivalent, much as
Schroedinger's equations are compatible with quantum theory
after all.
> One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a 'crucial
> experiment'; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one
> cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the
> deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations
> is always tested together."
This strikes me more as a potential pitfall and not
a problem with science itself.
> I don't know exactly how Plantinga would define a "good" reason, but I can
> give some examples. We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like
> it does today. There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't
> suddenly start attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like
> since the universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
> reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Recent memory is more like all of recorded history,
and there's good evidence electrons behaved similarly
during the Cetacious period, during the formation of
the earth 4.5 billion years, all the way back to just
after the big b-b-b-b-b-b-explosion.
--oTTo--
Louis Nick III
On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
> >We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like it does today.
> >There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
> >attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
> >universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
> >reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Just as you can only shakily apply logic to culture, one can only shakily
apply logic to the universe. The universe escapes all models, at some
point.
> Really? That's it? You mean it's sheer luck that everything based on
> like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
> the racetrack!
For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion years,
and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable, incomprehensible--to
humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and such.
> At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
> If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
Kibo.
> If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
> thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
It changes in time. And if there is a violation of conservation of
energy, then the answer is yes.
> And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
Why not? David Hume says so.
--
"With sufficient imagination a man could write a whole series of versions
of his life; it would form a union of sets in which the facts would be the
only elements in common." -- Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_
=== Louis Nick III sn...@u.washington.edu alt.religion.louis-nick ===
Jim Klein
In <Pine.A41.3.95.970528...@login2.isis.unc.edu>
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>We assume that the universe will work tomorrow like it does today.
>There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
>attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
>universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
>reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
Really? That's it? You mean it's sheer luck that everything based on
like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
the racetrack!
At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
jk
Eddie Saxe
In article <5mlm8e$8...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Pine.A41.3.95.970528...@login2.isis.unc.edu>
>Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
>>There's no logical way to prove that electrons won't suddenly start
>>attracting each other next Thursday. We just feel like since the
>>universe has been uniform in recent memory that that's a "good
>>reason" to believe it will continue to behave.
>
>like charges repelling has worked? Wow...those engineers should go to
>the racetrack!
Wasn't there a hiring spike of chaos mathematicians by some of the larger
stockbrokerage firms a little while back?
>At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
Yep. So far though, this has been only been observed with very small things.
See alt.sex.bondage.particle.physics.
>If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
Ellen DeGeneres' sex life, for one.
>If not, then isn't it true that at two seperate instances, or times, a
>thing must be what it was (or will be) if it didn't (doesn't) change?
>
>And if it does change, then can that change occur without a cause?
Indeed. Welcome to the Real World.
Eddie
--
They can have my latte when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970529...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion
>years, and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable,
>incomprehensible--to humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and
>such.
If this is true, then there is NO connection between our knowledge and
actual reality. And if THAT is the case, why eat steak for dinner,
rather than rocks? After all, rocks are easier to come by.
And you can't just plead to "high probabilities" because the very idea
of probability necessitates a connection between our knowledge and
independent reality. I.e., if there were NO causal connection, then a
high probability would be no different than a low probability, and we'd
be using Mohs' Scale for a menu.
jk
Jim Klein
In <5mlp1l$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com> sa...@auberon.engr.sgi.com (Eddie Saxe)
writes:
>>At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
>
>Yep. So far though, this has been only been observed with very small
>things.
OBSERVED??? That's remarkable! Who observed it, and what exactly did
they observe? I think you probably mean "detected", and I have a hunch
that you're talking about "non-caused events", events that are
"inherently random", a tall order in itself.
But if something was actually "observed" (that's a human function) to
actually be two mutually exclusive items at once, I'd really appreciate
the pointer. Thanks.
>>If so, then what in the world could there possibly be to talk about?
>
>Ellen DeGeneres' sex life, for one.
Which one---the one it is, or the one that's distinct from that?
jk
Louis Nick III
On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
>
> >For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion
> >years, and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable,
> >incomprehensible--to humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and
> >such.
>
> If this is true, then there is NO connection between our knowledge and
> actual reality.
Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Humanity would change, too,
and if it wasn't wiped out by some fundmental law's change. Science's
ability to predict is often a measure of how acceptable and accepted it
is. But theories of cosmology aren't advanced enough to account for
phenomenon such as that I described. A Supernova that went off say 19
years ago, at a distance of 6pc, perhaps, would wipe out humanity in about
six months, thus ridding from the universe all our knowledge (leaving only
cockroaches and the internet), would it wipe out actual reality? Arguably
yes, but you'd say no. Yet you seem to have a problem with the reverse.
Unless you believe that we KNOW everything about "actual reality,"
obviously nature has plenty of curves to throw us. And we can't predict
them. So despite any perceived connections between "actual reality" (a
questionable notion at best) and knowledge are temporary at best, yourown
hang-ups at worst.
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970530...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
>> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> >For all we know, there's a universe-nature shift every 13.1 billion
>> >years, and that could be tomorrow. It's undetectable,
>> >incomprehensible--to humanity, which is a mere 10^5 years old, and
>> >such.
>>
>> If this is true, then there is NO connection between our knowledge
>> and actual reality.
>
>Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit?
No. I "over-react" to physical imposition, not words. Of course, even
then, I don't think I'm over-reacting!
>Humanity would change, too, and if it wasn't wiped out by some
>fundmental law's change.
Oh, sure we could change. Oh sure, our analysis of a "fundamental law"
could be incomplete, or incorrect. But this isn't what you posited.
>Science's ability to predict is often a measure of how acceptable and
>accepted it is.
I'm not sure I understand this, but it sounds true enough.
>But theories of cosmology aren't advanced enough to account for
>phenomenon such as that I described.
Not only aren't they, they _couldn't_ be. Nothing could account for
the phenomenon you described, by virtue of the meanings of
"nature-shift" and "account". Technically, it couldn't even reach the
level of "phenomenon" since perception (a part of phenomenon) presumes
a perceiving being, and a perceiving being presumes objects to be
perceived, which presumes objects, which presumes a universe with a
nature. If the universe had no nature, how could there be objects to
be perceived, let alone something to perceive them?
Maybe you'd like to propose that everything has a nature, but that
nature may change without cause. Okay, but that's really not what a
nature is. It's the unchanging essence of an object.
>A Supernova that went off say 19 years ago, at a distance of 6pc,
>perhaps, would wipe out humanity in about six months, thus ridding
>from the universe all our knowledge (leaving only cockroaches and the
>internet), would it wipe out actual reality?
No.
>Arguably yes, but you'd say no.
What's the argument that it _would_ "wipe out actual reality"?
>Yet you seem to have a problem with the reverse.
Do you mean, "Arguably no, but you'd say yes"? I don't really have a
problem with that. Lots of people are wrong, often.
>Unless you believe that we KNOW everything about "actual reality,"
I don't.
>obviously nature has plenty of curves to throw us.
It does.
>And we can't predict them.
We can't.
>So despite any perceived connections between "actual reality" (a
>questionable notion at best) and knowledge are temporary at best,
They are.
>yourown hang-ups at worst.
My "hang-ups" are with words, not cosmology in particular. You didn't
say "a major change in the Universe," nor did you say "a huge error in
our understanding of fundamentals;" neither one of those would have
brought my comment. What you DID say was, "a universe-nature shift".
THIS can't happen, regardless of our knowledge. If anything, my
comment was too weak, since it brought in "knowledge" to the issue.
Knowledge has nothing to do with it; a thing is what it is, and
nothing else.
The reason I brought in knowledge, is because our own actions are what
we're most familiar with. If nothing has identity, then what the hell
is going on HERE? Surely, you wouldn't imagine that the universe has
no identity, but we do. Maybe I shouldn't say; would you?
jk
E.Holmes
On 30 May 1997, Jim Klein wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
Eeks, how did we pick up an Objectivist? (A prolific one, too,
judging by his DN profile :-)
/In <5mlp1l$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com> sa...@auberon.engr.sgi.com (Eddie Saxe)
/writes:
/
/>>At a given instance, can a thing be other than what it is?
/>
/>Yep. So far though, this has been only been observed with very small
/>things.
/
/OBSERVED??? That's remarkable! Who observed it, and what exactly did
/they observe? I think you probably mean "detected", and I have a hunch
/that you're talking about "non-caused events", events that are
/"inherently random", a tall order in itself.
"To make an observation" is a perfectly good phrase which does
not require direct physical contact with the object/event. It
connotes within both the detection and the impingement upon a
consciousness, thus ----------------------||
||
\/
/But if something was actually "observed" (that's a human function) to
/actually be two mutually exclusive items at once, I'd really appreciate
/the pointer. Thanks.
Try photons.
E.Holmes
--
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt
with a cat." ~~ Lazarus Long
http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/ eho...@onramp.net
--
"Talk, Meow or get out of the Way." -- Fluffy
E.Holmes
Jim Klein
In <33952037...@news.onramp.net> eho...@onramp.net (E.Holmes)
writes:
> Eeks, how did we pick up an Objectivist?
By request.
>(A prolific one, too, judging by his DN profile :-)
Why would you judge by that, if a thing can be two exclusive items at
once? Perhaps I show lots of posts in DN, but never actually posted
one! Where's the connection?
> "To make an observation" is a perfectly good phrase which does
> not require direct physical contact with the object/event. It
> connotes within both the detection and the impingement upon a
> consciousness,
Okay.
>/But if something was actually "observed" (that's a human function) to
>/actually be two mutually exclusive items at once, I'd really
>/appreciate the pointer. Thanks.
>
> Try photons.
I'm a rookie. What two mutually exclusive items are those?
jk
Otto Bahn
Jim Klein wrote:
> >/But if something was actually "observed" (that's a human function) to
> >/actually be two mutually exclusive items at once, I'd really
> >/appreciate the pointer. Thanks.
> >
> > Try photons.
>
> I'm a rookie. What two mutually exclusive items are those?
I think she means wave and particle. However, Shroedinger's
equations have been shown to be equivalent to the quantum
physics equations, so this is not an appropriate example
from a physics point of view. It's not so much a wave *and*
a particle, but something else that behaves like both.
A photon that travels through both slits can be viewed
similarly. You can never see a mutually exclusive
photon; if you look it chooses a slit.
I will admit that quantum physics is a subject that defies
normal human perception, experience, and expectations. We
are in over our heads.
--oTTo--
Louis Nick III
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>Humanity would change, too, and if it wasn't wiped out by some
>>fundmental law's change.
>
>Oh, sure we could change. Oh sure, our analysis of a "fundamental law"
>could be incomplete, or incorrect. But this isn't what you posited.
Could != would.
>>Science's ability to predict is often a measure of how acceptable and
>>accepted it is.
>
>I'm not sure I understand this, but it sounds true enough.
Let me put it this way. Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts paths and
motions of objects in a gravitational field. It _predicts_, it does not
require objects to follow predicted paths, or whatever. The field does
that. We accept the Law because it predicts.
>>But theories of cosmology aren't advanced enough to account for
>>phenomenon such as that I described.
>
>Not only aren't they, they _couldn't_ be. Nothing could account for
>the phenomenon you described, by virtue of the meanings of
>"nature-shift" and "account". Technically, it couldn't even reach the
>level of "phenomenon" since perception (a part of phenomenon) presumes
>a perceiving being, and a perceiving being presumes objects to be
>perceived, which presumes objects, which presumes a universe with a
>nature. If the universe had no nature, how could there be objects to
>be perceived, let alone something to perceive them?
Excuse my diction. My thoughts are not as limited as my language. Old
rule of context, against the tradition of analysis: Step back a step.
Einstein did not eradicate objective time, he replaced it with a new one.
The "universe," as it was, and won't be longer, had a nature, and will
have a nature until some event occurs that changes the nature, and
therefore the concept of universe.
>Maybe you'd like to propose that everything has a nature, but that
>nature may change without cause. Okay, but that's really not what a
>nature is. It's the unchanging essence of an object.
You can't describe a new universe in terms of this old one. It's
inconceivable. It's just plain nonsense to talk about a "previous
universe" in terms of the current one. Thus, the now-nature of the
now-universe is cannot, by exclusivity, be compared to the then-universe
and its then-nature.
>>A Supernova that went off say 19 years ago, at a distance of 6pc,
>>perhaps, would wipe out humanity in about six months, thus ridding
>>from the universe all our knowledge (leaving only cockroaches and the
>>internet), would it wipe out actual reality?
>No.
>>Arguably yes, but you'd say no.
>
>What's the argument that it _would_ "wipe out actual reality"?
Your basic Cartesian Existential Theory. Nobody to think, nobody to be.
Throw it some solipsism, and Boom. The universe ceases to be when the
last man dies. Or the last observer. Depends on your belief.
>>Yet you seem to have a problem with the reverse.
>
>Do you mean, "Arguably no, but you'd say yes"? I don't really have a
>problem with that. Lots of people are wrong, often.
You're tellin *me*. The reverse is a change in the nature of the universe
somehow eradicating knowledge, so called objective knowledge.
>>So despite any perceived connections between "actual reality" (a
>>questionable notion at best) and knowledge are temporary at best,
>
>They are.
So you say. But you're just another guy on the Internet, and not one I've
come over September to read offhand.
>>yourown hang-ups at worst.
>
>My "hang-ups" are with words, not cosmology in particular. You didn't
>say "a major change in the Universe," nor did you say "a huge error in
>our understanding of fundamentals;" neither one of those would have
>brought my comment. What you DID say was, "a universe-nature shift".
>THIS can't happen, regardless of our knowledge. If anything, my
>comment was too weak, since it brought in "knowledge" to the issue.
>Knowledge has nothing to do with it; a thing is what it is, and
>nothing else.
You say it can't happen. Why? What basis have you? I get the realm of
untestable hypotheses. I get the fact that you can't disprove the notion,
because all your tools of rhetoric or deduction are limited by, well, the
universe. Their own natures, if you will. What you could, at best, say,
is that if such a shift happens, we will not be aware of it, and we cannot
describe its course. We, as we are, wouldn't *be*.
>The reason I brought in knowledge, is because our own actions are what
>we're most familiar with. If nothing has identity, then what the hell
>is going on HERE? Surely, you wouldn't imagine that the universe has
>no identity, but we do. Maybe I shouldn't say; would you?
The universe is infinitely classifiable. It has no one identity,
description or --dare I say it-- nature. Your objectivist notions compose
one of infinite viewpoints. My classification of you is another. Step
back.
--
"I've pretty much given up the hopes for adulation from the USENET masses
at this point, although I must admit I *am* satisfied with the quality and
quantity of the groupies so far." -"Jesse Garon" <gri...@primenet.com>
Louis Nick III
On 5 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
sn...@u.washington.edu (Louis Nick III) writes:
> >Excuse my diction. My thoughts are not as limited as my language.
>
> Let's start there...yes, they are. They are precisely limited my your
> language, if we take "language" in the widest sense---the symbolic
> storage, retrieval and association of percepts and concepts in your
> brain. No percepts or no concepts or no storage---no thought. That's
> what thought IS.
Yes, yes, I've read Wittgenstein too. Let me rephrase, for your
comprehension. My thoughts are not limited to your interpreation of my
postings.
> >The "universe," as it was, and won't be longer, had a nature, and will
> >have a nature until some event occurs that changes the nature, and
> >therefore the concept of universe.
>
> Then get another word. There can be only one universe, and it subsumes
> all that there is, or could be. Otherwise, "uni-" is the wrong
> preface. It would take a second one to change the nature of the first.
It could be an unknown scale of processes that transforms them. Something
which is even greater than Everything. Not hard to picture, if you can
handle that a black hole is an edge of the universe.
> >It's inconceivable. It's just plain nonsense to talk about a
> >"previous universe" in terms of the current one.
>
> No, it's plain nonsense to talk about more than one universe.
Not at all, as long as they have no interaction, they can co-reside in
that place where universes live. The world universe cannot contain
everything, unless everything includes Nothing.
> >Thus, the now-nature of the now-universe is cannot, by exclusivity, be
> >compared to the then-universe and its then-nature.
>
> That's right, because it's the same universe. Otherwise, you're
> talking about something else. Which is okay---just say what it is, and
> we can consider it.
I say we're talking about two different, incomparable things.
> >Your basic Cartesian Existential Theory. Nobody to think, nobody to
> >be. Throw it some solipsism, and Boom. The universe ceases to be
> >when the last man dies. Or the last observer. Depends on your
> >belief.
>
> WHAT "depends on your belief"---your belief, or the universe itself?
Not one's belief, nor the universe (well, the universe may depend one
what one believes, but that's pure tetrapolytomy). The choice of
observer/detector depends on your belief. But so do both philosophies.
> >You're tellin *me*. The reverse is a change in the nature of the
> >universe somehow eradicating knowledge, so called objective knowledge.
>
> Oh, I hope you don't think I'm saying that it's impossible that our
> knowledge, objective or otherwise, could be fundametally changed.
> Obviously it could, even to the point of eradication. Frankly, I think
> that if things don't change, it's downright likely!
Objective knowledge cannot be eradicated _unless_ the subjects of that
knowledge is changed, likely or not.
> What any of that has to do with the fact that the universe and
> everything in it, are what they are, and cannot noncausally change, I
> don't know.
The cause could be built into the universe (like a big Bang or proton
decay) or could from from that conceivable realm of that which is bigger.
> >So you say. But you're just another guy on the Internet, and not one
> >I've come over September to read offhand.
>
> That's a very pretty phrase. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the
> underlying connotations.
Minor Premise: September 1993 has never ended, and is now in thousands of
days.
> >You say it can't happen. Why? What basis have you? I get the realm
> >of untestable hypotheses.
>
> The very comment proves my point. Testable...against WHAT?
Belief, I think.
> >I get the fact that you can't disprove the notion,
> >because all your tools of rhetoric or deduction are limited by, well,
> >the universe. Their own natures, if you will. What you could, at
> >best, say, is that if such a shift happens, we will not be aware of
> >it, and we cannot describe its course. We, as we are, wouldn't *be*.
>
> But we're not talking about us, or our descriptions, or rhetoric.
> We're talking about whether things are what they are. You say they may
> not be, since the universe could have a different nature next Thursday.
You're the objectivist here, you're talking about whether things are what
they are, and you have a belief as to which answer is correct. I just
joined this thread because it came to my newsfroup and now I'm here.
Also, tomorrow is Thursday.
> >The universe is infinitely classifiable.
>
> No it's not. "Classification" is a human function. As there aren't
> infinite humans, there aren't infinite classifications. Infinite
> "possible" classifications, maybe...if you're willing to use "possible"
> outside of the range of "able to exist".
It doesn't take infinite humans, for each human is capable of multiple
classifications. I'd say one is enough. As for infinite possible
classifications, well, no. Nothing infinite is "able to exist." Except,
perhaps, the concept. Which is what we discuss.
> >It has no one identity, description or --dare I say it-- nature.
>
> It has EXACTLY one identity---that's what it means.
Objetivist. The definition of nature changes with interpretation. This
is where we disagree and disbelieve each other.
> >Your objectivist notions compose one of infinite viewpoints.
>
> Screw my "objectivist notions"...they aren't relevant. You're basing
> an entire outlook of the world on something that has never been seen,
> and couldn't be seen. My only question is, to what end?
I could write a book about your objectivist notions, and it would be a
biography. Your objectivism interferes with/guides everything you've
written so far. To what end? I have to have a motive? Okay, because
it's entertaining to argue with a person who has fundamental disagreements
with me.
> >Step back.
>
> That IS the whole point to Objectivism, after all.
Start with Objectivism. Step back again.
--
"With sufficient imagination a man could write a whole series of versions
of his life; it would form a union of sets in which the facts would be the
only elements in common." -- Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_
Jim Klein
In <5n0363$d...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> sn...@u.washington.edu (Louis
Nick III) writes:
>Excuse my diction. My thoughts are not as limited as my language.
Let's start there...yes, they are. They are precisely limited my your
language, if we take "language" in the widest sense---the symbolic
storage, retrieval and association of percepts and concepts in your
brain. No percepts or no concepts or no storage---no thought. That's
what thought IS.
>The "universe," as it was, and won't be longer, had a nature, and will
>have a nature until some event occurs that changes the nature, and
>therefore the concept of universe.
Then get another word. There can be only one universe, and it subsumes
all that there is, or could be. Otherwise, "uni-" is the wrong
preface. It would take a second one to change the nature of the first.
>>Maybe you'd like to propose that everything has a nature, but that
>>nature may change without cause. Okay, but that's really not what a
>>nature is. It's the unchanging essence of an object.
>
>You can't describe a new universe in terms of this old one.
You can't describe a "new universe"...period.
>It's inconceivable. It's just plain nonsense to talk about a
>"previous universe" in terms of the current one.
No, it's plain nonsense to talk about more than one universe.
>Thus, the now-nature of the now-universe is cannot, by exclusivity, be
>compared to the then-universe and its then-nature.
That's right, because it's the same universe. Otherwise, you're
talking about something else. Which is okay---just say what it is, and
we can consider it.
>Your basic Cartesian Existential Theory. Nobody to think, nobody to
>be. Throw it some solipsism, and Boom. The universe ceases to be
>when the last man dies. Or the last observer. Depends on your
>belief.
WHAT "depends on your belief"---your belief, or the universe itself?
>You're tellin *me*. The reverse is a change in the nature of the
>universe somehow eradicating knowledge, so called objective knowledge.
Oh, I hope you don't think I'm saying that it's impossible that our
knowledge, objective or otherwise, could be fundametally changed.
Obviously it could, even to the point of eradication. Frankly, I think
that if things don't change, it's downright likely!
What any of that has to do with the fact that the universe and
everything in it, are what they are, and cannot noncausally change, I
don't know.
>So you say. But you're just another guy on the Internet, and not one
>I've come over September to read offhand.
That's a very pretty phrase. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the
underlying connotations.
>You say it can't happen. Why? What basis have you? I get the realm
>of untestable hypotheses.
The very comment proves my point. Testable...against WHAT?
>I get the fact that you can't disprove the notion,
>because all your tools of rhetoric or deduction are limited by, well,
>the universe. Their own natures, if you will. What you could, at
>best, say, is that if such a shift happens, we will not be aware of
>it, and we cannot describe its course. We, as we are, wouldn't *be*.
But we're not talking about us, or our descriptions, or rhetoric.
We're talking about whether things are what they are. You say they may
not be, since the universe could have a different nature next Thursday.
>The universe is infinitely classifiable.
No it's not. "Classification" is a human function. As there aren't
infinite humans, there aren't infinite classifications. Infinite
"possible" classifications, maybe...if you're willing to use "possible"
outside of the range of "able to exist".
>It has no one identity, description or --dare I say it-- nature.
It has EXACTLY one identity---that's what it means.
>Your objectivist notions compose one of infinite viewpoints.
Screw my "objectivist notions"...they aren't relevant. You're basing
an entire outlook of the world on something that has never been seen,
and couldn't be seen. My only question is, to what end?
>My classification of you is another.
As long as you bring it up, I should mention that I wrote a much more
amicable post the other night, but the system faulted before I sent it.
I'm a fair degree more ornery tonight; they're both my nature, after
all!
>Step back.
That IS the whole point to Objectivism, after all.
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.97060...@becker1.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Yes, yes, I've read Wittgenstein too. Let me rephrase, for your
>comprehension. My thoughts are not limited to your interpreation of
>my postings.
Ha! Well, that's a relief. And I'm hardly capable of quoting
Wittgenstein, though I think I may have read something by him decades
ago. I'm intentionally poorly read; this is so my statements can stand
or fall on their own. I have read most everything by Rand, years ago,
but I don't think my basic philosophy was changed one iota by her.
>It could be an unknown scale of processes that transforms them.
>Something which is even greater than Everything.
Back when I had a field, it was linguistics. This just makes mish-mosh
of language. Somethings got to give---either your meaning of "greater"
or your meaning of "Everything".
>Not hard to picture, if you can handle that a black hole is an edge of
>the universe.
"Picturing" has little to do with existence, or the possibility of
same. I can picture a twelve legged green fish on my computer desk,
right now.
>Not at all, as long as they have no interaction, they can co-reside in
>that place where universes live. The world universe cannot contain
>everything, unless everything includes Nothing.
Oh, you mean the universe of universes! Like I said, get another word.
>I say we're talking about two different, incomparable things.
No doubt about that. But it wouldn't be too tough for me to establish
that I'm talking about things---all I need you to accept is that A is
A. For you to claim that you're talking about things requires that A
is not A, plus a lot of other problematic premises.
>Objective knowledge cannot be eradicated _unless_ the subjects of that
>knowledge is changed, likely or not.
You seem to acknowledge the existence of objective knowledge here.
That would imply that there's such a thing as objective truth, which in
turn implies that the universe has a certain nature. The only thing
missing is causation---is that the only place where we disagree?
>The cause could be built into the universe (like a big Bang or proton
>decay) or could from from that conceivable realm of that which is
>bigger.
If the cause is built into the universe, it's part of the nature of the
universe. Literally, there is no conceivable realm bigger than the
universe. If there is, it ain't the universe of which you conceive.
>Minor Premise: September 1993 has never ended, and is now in thousands
>of days.
Stuff like this is what sometimes send me up the wall. It's bad enough
pretending that things which are, are only figments of our imagination.
What I don't get is why someone who would do THAT, would then take
things which are products of our imagination, and make THEM the things
which are.
>Belief, I think.
That would allow cars to run on water, I think.
>You're the objectivist here, you're talking about whether things are
>what they are, and you have a belief as to which answer is correct. I
>just joined this thread because it came to my newsfroup and now I'm
>here. Also, tomorrow is Thursday.
Maybe NEXT Thursday, eh?
>It doesn't take infinite humans, for each human is capable of multiple
>classifications. I'd say one is enough. As for infinite possible
>classifications, well, no. Nothing infinite is "able to exist."
Gee, that seems surprising coming from you.
>Except, perhaps, the concept. Which is what we discuss.
I don't like discussing concepts. I'd much prefer to discuss that to
which the concepts refer. But I'm agreed that you must discuss
concepts first, to get there.
>Objetivist.
It may interest you that I'm considered by most "formal Objectivists"
to be a genuine enemy of that which they value. I don't like dogma any
more from them, than I do from anybody else.
>The definition of nature changes with interpretation. This
>is where we disagree and disbelieve each other.
But I don't disagree with this. Of course "definition" changes with
interpretation. But definition isn't existence. I think good
definition coincides itself with existents, but it's not some sort of
revealed primary that it does. In fact, VERY often it doesn't.
>I could write a book about your objectivist notions, and it would be a
>biography. Your objectivism interferes with/guides everything you've
>written so far. To what end?
My personal fulfillment and enjoyment.
>I have to have a motive?
No, but I know that you do. Since you've made it this long, I know
that you eat. Surely that took a motive, didn't it?
>Okay, because it's entertaining to argue with a person who has
>fundamental disagreements with me.
See, I told ya so.
>Start with Objectivism. Step back again.
Oh, I'm much harsher on my own conclusions than I am upon others'. I
long ago stopped taking ANYTHING for granted. Still, that doesn't mean
that there's no such things as true statements, and false ones.
jk
Louis Nick III
On 5 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> >comprehension. My thoughts are not limited to your interpreation of
> >my postings.
>
> Wittgenstein, though I think I may have read something by him decades
> ago. I'm intentionally poorly read; this is so my statements can stand
> or fall on their own. I have read most everything by Rand, years ago,
> but I don't think my basic philosophy was changed one iota by her.
I read Wittgenstein because I was curious about one of his theories, but
most was explained (interpreted really) to me by a guy writing his
undergrad thesis on Ludwig and one of his contemporaries, Walter Benjamin.
But I'm not surprised at your having read Rand, and while I'd not soon
accuse you of blindly following her (obviously she peeked your interest
because she thought similarly), she *is* an objectivist, and I don't
follow her ideas any more than yours.
> >It could be an unknown scale of processes that transforms them.
> >Something which is even greater than Everything.
>
> Back when I had a field, it was linguistics. This just makes mish-mosh
> of language. Somethings got to give---either your meaning of "greater"
> or your meaning of "Everything".
Not my meaning, because we clearly allow different interpretations of
those english words. Your meaning must give, one or the other, so that
you can understand me.
> >Not hard to picture, if you can handle that a black hole is an edge of
> >the universe.
>
> "Picturing" has little to do with existence, or the possibility of
> same. I can picture a twelve legged green fish on my computer desk,
> right now.
Yeah, but that's a long way from evidence and conviction. If you were
convinced there was a twelve-legged green trout on your desk, your
objectivist sense would say that it exists. I'd count the trout's
footprints and declare you insane.
> >Not at all, as long as they have no interaction, they can co-reside in
> >that place where universes live. The world universe cannot contain
> >everything, unless everything includes Nothing.
>
> Oh, you mean the universe of universes! Like I said, get another word.
Uberuniverse. Happy?
> >I say we're talking about two different, incomparable things.
>
> No doubt about that. But it wouldn't be too tough for me to establish
> that I'm talking about things---all I need you to accept is that A is
> A. For you to claim that you're talking about things requires that A
> is not A, plus a lot of other problematic premises.
A ~= A. A is a lingual object, not a thing. How can we describe things,
when we are limited to our thoughts by our language?
> >Objective knowledge cannot be eradicated _unless_ the subjects of that
> >knowledge is changed, likely or not.
>
> You seem to acknowledge the existence of objective knowledge here.
I accept the possibility that it exists.
> That would imply that there's such a thing as objective truth, which in
> turn implies that the universe has a certain nature. The only thing
> missing is causation---is that the only place where we disagree?
You're using a set of deductive logical rules to imply the existence of
objective truth. That is not necessarily true, or rather, productive.
The nature of truth is left to question, because "objective knowledge"
would be the sum of all interpretations of truth. In other words, for one
to be omniscient, it would not be as simple as knowing what everything is,
and what it does, and where it is, etc. But knowing those things from
every conceivable viewpoint. A hopeless task, somewhere on par with
thinking like Rousseau and Machiavelli at the same time.
> >The cause could be built into the universe (like a big Bang or proton
> >decay) or could from from that conceivable realm of that which is
> >bigger.
>
> If the cause is built into the universe, it's part of the nature of the
> universe. Literally, there is no conceivable realm bigger than the
> universe. If there is, it ain't the universe of which you conceive.
The universe I conceive is filled with galaxies and the sort of space-time
aether, masses and energies. That is the only one I can describe. And
those things are my Everything. I cannot describe what is bigger, but
it's existence is conceivable. I've tried to use language that does my
image justice, but I'm resigned to the fact that you are not capable of
thinking like I do, by mere virtue of the fact that you have not
experienced all and only all that contributes to the creation of me as I
am.
> >Minor Premise: September 1993 has never ended, and is now in thousands
> >of days.
>
> Stuff like this is what sometimes send me up the wall. It's bad enough
> pretending that things which are, are only figments of our imagination.
> What I don't get is why someone who would do THAT, would then take
> things which are products of our imagination, and make THEM the things
> which are.
Simple. Every September, thousands of Freshman get their college email
accounts, and given the massive lack-of-experience that all these newusers
have, they tend to make life a living hell for those of us who have been
here for a while. Following September 1993, USENET was recently
transformed, AOL came into existence, and Al Gore led the Information
Cyberonramp movement, creating an endless supply of inexperienced users,
as though September never ended. But the point is this: when I say "come
over September to..." I mean for as long as that, about 3.75 year's
length. Take that with the fact (that you couldn't know) that I actually
was a Freshman in 1993, that means that September's length is as long as
I've been on the net.
> >Belief, I think.
>
> That would allow cars to run on water, I think.
They can. Not well. And nobody is convinced of it, so it doesn't happen.
> Maybe NEXT Thursday, eh?
NO! Then I'll have to put up with ER for a whole other week!
> >It doesn't take infinite humans, for each human is capable of multiple
> >classifications. I'd say one is enough. As for infinite possible
> >classifications, well, no. Nothing infinite is "able to exist."
>
> Gee, that seems surprising coming from you.
It's an argument I've considered greatly. Everything has resolution at
some scale. Even if nothing is greater to compare it with. Or so.
> >Except, perhaps, the concept. Which is what we discuss.
>
> I don't like discussing concepts. I'd much prefer to discuss that to
> which the concepts refer. But I'm agreed that you must discuss
> concepts first, to get there.
We get there when we get there. If "there" is "when you've convinced me,"
then we're moving backwards.
> >Objetivist.
>
> It may interest you that I'm considered by most "formal Objectivists"
> to be a genuine enemy of that which they value. I don't like dogma any
> more from them, than I do from anybody else.
Frankly, I don't know the difference. I was kicked formally out of
Objectivism because of the critical theory.
> >The definition of nature changes with interpretation. This
> >is where we disagree and disbelieve each other.
>
> But I don't disagree with this. Of course "definition" changes with
> interpretation. But definition isn't existence. I think good
> definition coincides itself with existents, but it's not some sort of
> revealed primary that it does. In fact, VERY often it doesn't.
Definition is existence, if definition is the same as convention. Suppose
all everything is chaos, and your conventions, lingual, etc., put order on
to it. It's perfectly legitimate belief, and it doesn't necessarily mean
that you can change existance by thinking about it. However, as one
changes in language depth, and so forth, on sees things as different. You
say the things do not actually change, but how can you tell?
> >Start with Objectivism. Step back again.
>
> Oh, I'm much harsher on my own conclusions than I am upon others'. I
> long ago stopped taking ANYTHING for granted. Still, that doesn't mean
> that there's no such things as true statements, and false ones.
In a particular context. A statement cannot be weighed by itself.
Stefan Kapusniak
Okay, I admit I'm struggling to follow this, so could someone tell
me whether the following is a reasonable outline of the two positions
that are being argued...
Jim Klein is arguing that there is a measurable objective
reality and that we can prove this via reasoning from some set of
fundamental premises [which are...?]
Louis Nick is saying that there may, or may not, be a measurable
objective reality but that we cannot via reasoning prove this one
way or the other, since any set of premises from which you can
deduce that such a reality exists must themselves depend on the
acceptance of the premise that there is such a reality. One
either accepts the existence of a measurable objective reality
as one of ones fundamental premises [axioms?] or one does not,
and then proceeds to slice from there accordingly.
...Or am I completely off the beam here?
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Jaffo
I'm sorry, I have trouble following philosophical threads.
Here's my case for objective reality.
You are in a soundproof room. You cannot see or hear anything.
A person silently enters the room with a police baton.
You have no way of perceiving his existence at that time.
The person swings the baton.
Does it hurt?
The reality of that baton exists no matter how much you wish it away, no
matter how much you close your eyes to it, and no matter how ignorant you may
be of its processes.
A baton you do not perceive is still a baton.
Your perceptions may be flawed, but they have absolutely no bearing on
reality.
Reality doesn't care if you perceive it or not. It just exists.
Frequently, we make assumptions about reality based on flawed perception, then
when our perceptions turn out to be wrong, the baton crashes into our head and
we realize we must change our science to account for the pain.
But if the baton hits you on the back of the head, and you still refuse to
believe it exists, you are insane.
Jaffo
P.S. And yes, when we die, a LOT of people are going to get a baton to the
back of the head that they never saw coming. Either the Christians will come
to grips with nothingness (which is a contradiction) or a lot of very smug
Atheists will find their nuts roasting in a subjective, metaphysical, unproven
lava pit. There are people who will not believe in Hell until they smell
their own burning flesh. One may argue, that's what Hell is FOR. To convince
people the only way they CAN be convinced.
But to threaten people on the basis of Hell is to threaten people with a fire
that has no heat and no smoke right now. If there is a Hell, you are doing
the best you can to serve humanity. If hell does not actually exist, you are
merely using the threat of force to manipulate people into following your
moral code.
The first motive is highly moral. The second motive is highly immoral. Is it
any wonder people either love or hate Christians?
--
I have prevented my master from obliterating the world on several
occasions by serving as a convenient outlet for his wrath.
Louis Nick III
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> I'm sorry, I have trouble following philosophical threads.
> Here's my case for objective reality.
> You are in a soundproof room. You cannot see or hear anything.
> A person silently enters the room with a police baton.
> You have no way of perceiving his existence at that time.
> The person swings the baton.
> Does it hurt?
No. You have no way of percieving the existance of the baton, unless,
somehow, its nature changes. _Feeling_ or _sensing_ a blow to the head is
perception.
> The reality of that baton exists no matter how much you wish it away, no
> matter how much you close your eyes to it, and no matter how ignorant you may
> be of its processes.
>
> A baton you do not perceive is still a baton.
Not as far as you are concerned. If you cannot perceive it, it will swing
right through your head, because it cannot perceive you, I'd say, either.
The baton, without my perception is as good as the lack of a baton.
> Your perceptions may be flawed, but they have absolutely no bearing on
> reality.
The reality of the baton and my ability to perceive it are indeed
important. If I cannot perceive it, it is the same, (as far as I am
concerned) as if the baton did not exist. If I can't feel the pain, or
detect the blow, and it does not kill me, I am literally oblivious to the
baton again. I may sense something about the blow, the way my head moves
from the change in momentum, and I can't think like that or I'd perhaps
offer what I might think happened.
> Reality doesn't care if you perceive it or not. It just exists.
That's a belief.
> Frequently, we make assumptions about reality based on flawed perception, then
> when our perceptions turn out to be wrong, the baton crashes into our head and
> we realize we must change our science to account for the pain.
True, but you are making an assumption about the baton's existance. I
would not make such an assumption if I could not perceive the baton.
> But if the baton hits you on the back of the head, and you still refuse to
> believe it exists, you are insane.
Nah, I just have a radically different set of assumptions. By some
definitions, that is insanity. But would you say that insane people, if I
may reverse thie situation, are rational-thinking but base their thinking
on different assumptions?
What you say sheds light on the whole Genius/lunatic similarity, but
doesn't explain insanity in any real way. Therefore, what you say really
just categorizes people who think radically different that the sort of
status quo thinking. I mean, liberals hold a basically different set of
assumptions, but you only consider the extreme ones to be insane, even
though they aren't really, just obsessed around certain ideas that you a)
aren't obsessed with, and b) maybe disagree with.
> But to threaten people on the basis of Hell is to threaten people with a fire
> that has no heat and no smoke right now. If there is a Hell, you are doing
> the best you can to serve humanity. If hell does not actually exist, you are
> merely using the threat of force to manipulate people into following your
> moral code.
Whatever happened to the old idea that you drop to purgatory, and you burn
in your own sins for a while, then head up to heaven? I could hack that.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
: Ha! Well, that's a relief. And I'm hardly capable of quoting
: Wittgenstein, though I think I may have read something by him decades
: ago. I'm intentionally poorly read; this is so my statements can stand
: or fall on their own.
A horrid, terrible shame. You believe that you, one man, may come up with
the most correct, true, and appropriate belief system on your own? You
are simply lying to yourself by not reading. It is not as if being poorly
read enables you to live in the intellectual vacuum you seem to think will
bring you more credibility. Indeed, as long as you stoop to converse with
us mere mortals, you are affected by everything you see and hear.
Only the fool ignores the wisdom of the milennia.
--Gurk
--
g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick - Substantialist Rationalist/Mystic/Madman
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ g u r k @ n c s u . e d u -------
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.97060...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>>Back when I had a field, it was linguistics. This just makes
>>mish-mosh of language. Somethings got to give---either your meaning
>>of "greater" or your meaning of "Everything".
>
>Not my meaning, because we clearly allow different interpretations of
>those english words. Your meaning must give, one or the other, so
>that you can understand me.
You don't seem like a rude chap, but that's a rude request. Those
words already have conventional usages; why not pick some others? I'm
inclined to think that it's because you're theories won't make sense,
if you do. But I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong about that.
>> "Picturing" has little to do with existence, or the possibility of
>> same. I can picture a twelve legged green fish on my computer desk,
>> right now.
>
>Yeah, but that's a long way from evidence and conviction. If you were
>convinced there was a twelve-legged green trout on your desk, your
>objectivist sense would say that it exists. I'd count the trout's
>footprints and declare you insane.
But why count, or discuss "evidence", if the nature of the basis of all
the evidence can change on a moment's notice?
>Uberuniverse. Happy?
I'm downright elated...I've never even heard of it, yet I already know
that it has a nature, and that the nature can't change!
>A ~= A. A is a lingual object, not a thing. How can we describe
>things, when we are limited to our thoughts by our language?
Because our experience---the sensations and perceptions---arise from
outside of ourselves. The language is only the means by which we store
the interaction. The "A" in "A is A" does not refer to our storage of
it; it refers to A itself. The only way out of this is to say that
the "A" _only_ refers to our knowledge of it; this yields that A may
or may not be A.
>>>Objective knowledge cannot be eradicated _unless_ the subjects of
>>>that knowledge is changed, likely or not.
>>
>>You seem to acknowledge the existence of objective knowledge here.
>
>I accept the possibility that it exists.
Well, you couldn't have objective knowledge without an independent
reality, could you?
>You're using a set of deductive logical rules to imply the existence
>of objective truth. That is not necessarily true, or rather,
>productive. The nature of truth is left to question, because
>"objective knowledge" would be the sum of all interpretations of
>truth.
What I'm saying are "objective" are the existents themselves. As to
how they may be perceived, I'll grant your "infinite possibilities" for
the moment. But NONE of those possibilities of interpretation has the
slightest effect on the nature of the existent. And that's all I'm
saying---that the existents are whatever they are, and "behave" however
they behave. This is "truth" in an objective sense. The goal of "true
interpretation" is to have the knowledge be reflective of the nature.
As far as "productive", it's highly unlikely that it would be as easy
to build a machine, ANY machine, if apples were taken as likely to fall
up, as fall down.
>In other words, for one to be omniscient, it would not be as simple as
>knowing what everything is, and what it does, and where it is, etc.
>But knowing those things from every conceivable viewpoint. A hopeless
>task, somewhere on par with thinking like Rousseau and Machiavelli at
>the same time.
Sure it would be, but thankfully that's not what omniscience would
require. It would require an interpretation of everything there was to
interpret, with every interpretation consistent with the underlying
existent(s). While two omniscient beings might be able to do it in two
different languages or with two different methods, there would be NO
difference in interpretation. Because if there were, one of them would
be wrong.
>The universe I conceive is filled with galaxies and the sort of
>space-time aether, masses and energies. That is the only one I can
>describe. And those things are my Everything. I cannot describe what
>is bigger, but it's existence is conceivable.
"Conceivable," how???
>I've tried to use language that does my image justice, but I'm
>resigned to the fact that you are not capable of thinking like I do,
>by mere virtue of the fact that you have not experienced all and only
>all that contributes to the creation of me as I am.
Okay, fair enough. Then why do you write about such matters?
>> >Belief, I think.
>>
>> That would allow cars to run on water, I think.
>
>They can. Not well. And nobody is convinced of it, so it doesn't
>happen.
Do you mean that if they were convinced of it, it would?
>> Maybe NEXT Thursday, eh?
>
>NO! Then I'll have to put up with ER for a whole other week!
Just interpret it as winning the lottery!
>Frankly, I don't know the difference. I was kicked formally out of
>Objectivism because of the critical theory.
To what does this refer?
>>Oh, I'm much harsher on my own conclusions than I am upon others'. I
>>long ago stopped taking ANYTHING for granted. Still, that doesn't
>>mean that there's no such things as true statements, and false ones.
>
>In a particular context. A statement cannot be weighed by itself.
Except one---A is A. I guess if you wanted to reduce it to a claim of
faith, I'd technically have to agree.
But if so, what would you call the alternative?
jk
Louis Nick III
On 7 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >Not my meaning, because we clearly allow different interpretations of
> >those english words. Your meaning must give, one or the other, so
> >that you can understand me.
>
> You don't seem like a rude chap, but that's a rude request. Those
> words already have conventional usages; why not pick some others? I'm
> inclined to think that it's because you're theories won't make sense,
> if you do. But I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong about that.
What you seem to be asking is that I amend my lexicon to encompass words
that "conventionally" men what I'm talking about. Well, if people talked
could only conventionally, they could only have conventional ideas. It
may or may not be that my thoughts are not conventional. Second of all,
there are plenty of mainstream, "conventional" meanings to universe,
nature, and other words we speak of. It's this linguistic context that
has to go.
> >Yeah, but that's a long way from evidence and conviction. If you were
> >convinced there was a twelve-legged green trout on your desk, your
> >objectivist sense would say that it exists. I'd count the trout's
> >footprints and declare you insane.
>
> But why count, or discuss "evidence", if the nature of the basis of all
> the evidence can change on a moment's notice?
Because one lives pragmatically in the real world. They teach a class
here, CHID 110, the short course in critical thinking. They call in
Freshman disorientation. The instructor, a good friend, repeatedly
insists that if we don't learn to separate our class thinking from how we
think to live, we will end up drinking lattes and writing death poetry in
a dive cafe. The green fish is a reality in your "real world" (different
from mine, where it does not exist).
> >Uberuniverse. Happy?
>
> I'm downright elated...I've never even heard of it, yet I already know
> that it has a nature, and that the nature can't change!
But that its nature is to change the nature of the universe. You've never
heard of it, yet you clam to know about it? You may draw derivations from
the morphemes used to assemble the word, but there is no innate connection
between words and meanings. Maybe I was referring to That-Which-Has
Changing-Nature
> >A ~= A. A is a lingual object, not a thing. How can we describe
> >things, when we are limited to our thoughts by our language?
>
> Because our experience---the sensations and perceptions---arise from
> outside of ourselves. The language is only the means by which we store
> the interaction.
That is your hypothesis. It has no way of being proved, disproved,
argued, built upon, deconstructed, or even approached. This is, in other
words, an assumption. I don't share that assumption.
> The "A" in "A is A" does not refer to our storage of
> it; it refers to A itself. The only way out of this is to say that
> the "A" _only_ refers to our knowledge of it; this yields that A may
> or may not be A.
One man's escape ad argumentum is another man's belief.
> >>You seem to acknowledge the existence of objective knowledge here.
> >I accept the possibility that it exists.
> Well, you couldn't have objective knowledge without an independent
> reality, could you?
It could be a dependant reality, or it could be that the two coexist but
are not connected, or you could believe -falsely- in objective knowledge.
These are possibilities. So, to sum up, I accept the possibility that what
you say is true, just as I accept the possibility of the other, and
finally, I acept the possibility that objective knowledge does not exist.
> >You're using a set of deductive logical rules to imply the existence
> >of objective truth. That is not necessarily true, or rather,
> >productive. The nature of truth is left to question, because
> >"objective knowledge" would be the sum of all interpretations of
> >truth.
>
> What I'm saying are "objective" are the existents themselves. As to
> how they may be perceived, I'll grant your "infinite possibilities" for
> the moment. But NONE of those possibilities of interpretation has the
> slightest effect on the nature of the existent.
Absurd. Observing "the nature of the existent" does indeed interfere with
it. I'm not merely talking about collapsing indeterministic states,
either. Any attempt to use a sensor, biological or electronic, to observe
an "objective phenomenon or existent" does indeed change the existent.
Now, clearly we have different meanings for objective, but mine includes
yours.
> And that's all I'm
> saying---that the existents are whatever they are, and "behave" however
> they behave. This is "truth" in an objective sense. The goal of "true
> interpretation" is to have the knowledge be reflective of the nature.
That is the Objectivist Interpretation. Any newbie fresh from Philo 100
could identify that. You clearly aren't willing to see beyond this,
whether you can or not.
> As far as "productive", it's highly unlikely that it would be as easy
> to build a machine, ANY machine, if apples were taken as likely to fall
> up, as fall down.
Nah, construction would chosse an altogether different route. Rather
than on the basis of Cause and Effect, the would rely on probabilities as
the mechanical basis for machinery (of whatever sort).
> >In other words, for one to be omniscient, it would not be as simple as
> >knowing what everything is, and what it does, and where it is, etc.
> >But knowing those things from every conceivable viewpoint. A hopeless
> >task, somewhere on par with thinking like Rousseau and Machiavelli at
> >the same time.
>
> Sure it would be, but thankfully that's not what omniscience would
> require.
That's your objectivism again. See, a critical theorist may not think
like you, because everything, all of what you would call objective, is
questionable. If I became omniscient, I would be as I described. And
you, you.
Of course, when one of us becomes omniscient, we will see that we are both
wrong now.
> existent(s). While two omniscient beings might be able to do it in two
> different languages or with two different methods, there would be NO
> difference in interpretation. Because if there were, one of them would
> be wrong.
Your thinking of omnisciences is really limited if you belief that
languages are objective somehow. Objective People, that is, Omniscients,
would speak the same language, the language which allows all modes of
thought.
> >The universe I conceive is filled with galaxies and the sort of
> >space-time aether, masses and energies. That is the only one I can
> >describe. And those things are my Everything. I cannot describe what
> >is bigger, but it's existence is conceivable.
>
> "Conceivable," how???
I conceived it in my mind over breakfast. I simply can't express it. I'm
sorry you can't read my mind, and my textual lexicon is inadequate.
> >I've tried to use language that does my image justice, but I'm
> >resigned to the fact that you are not capable of thinking like I do,
> >by mere virtue of the fact that you have not experienced all and only
> >all that contributes to the creation of me as I am.
>
> Okay, fair enough. Then why do you write about such matters?
If you're asking me that if language is imperfect, why communicate, the
question answers itself. I communicate because it is possibly intinctual,
possible cultural, and possibily natural for me to do so. I do it the
same reason you do. We don't seem to be communicating as well as I do
with some people, because we don't have a common mode of thinking.
> >> >Belief, I think.
> >> That would allow cars to run on water, I think.
> >They can. Not well. And nobody is convinced of it, so it doesn't
> >happen.
> Do you mean that if they were convinced of it, it would?
I would believe it would, for the obvious reason that nobody could talk
me out of it, and evidence to the contrary would not sway me, because I
would dismiss it. However, describe to me the exact nature of how it was
impossible, in a manner I could comprehend, I would chance my conviction,
because evidence demanded it.
> >> Maybe NEXT Thursday, eh?
> >NO! Then I'll have to put up with ER for a whole other week!
> Just interpret it as winning the lottery!
Nah, more like the time I picked the winning numbewrs but didn't buy the
ticket.
> >Frankly, I don't know the difference. I was kicked formally out of
> >Objectivism because of the critical theory.
> To what does this refer?
A host of method and theory in determining the assumptions and motives of
the producer of data, man or machine. Branched out from literary
criticism, and there are plenty of sources on that that could better
describe the theory and method than I.
> >>Oh, I'm much harsher on my own conclusions than I am upon others'. I
> >>long ago stopped taking ANYTHING for granted. Still, that doesn't
> >>mean that there's no such things as true statements, and false ones.
> >In a particular context. A statement cannot be weighed by itself.
>
> Except one---A is A. I guess if you wanted to reduce it to a claim of
> faith, I'd technically have to agree.
It would be.
> But if so, what would you call the alternative?
I have no metaphysical quarrel with A != A. It would be faith again.
Jim Klein
In <5n99t5$m...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>A horrid, terrible shame. You believe that you, one man, may come up
>with the most correct, true, and appropriate belief system on your
>own?
Well, it may have come across a bit stronger than I meant! But I will
say that I'm of the opinion that "correct" and "true" don't
appropriately belong with "belief system".
>You are simply lying to yourself by not reading. It is not as if
>being poorly read enables you to live in the intellectual vacuum you
>seem to think will bring you more credibility.
Whoa...slow down there. First of all, I didn't say that I didn't seek
knowledge, nor did I say that I've always been poorly read. (How else
could I have read Wittgenstein?) Secondly I neither lie to myself nor
to others, simply or otherwise. I made a decision, years ago, to seek
understanding of the subject which most interested me---human
behavior---by closely studying human behavior. That hardly qualifies
as an "intellectual vacuum".
And, it's not "credibiity" that I seek; that's for second-handers who
depend on others to define their truth. What I'm after is the truth
itself.
>Indeed, as long as you stoop to converse with us mere mortals, you are
>affected by everything you see and hear.
Sure, but so what? We have finite time---I choose to understand
reality by sensing as much of it as possible. Others may choose to
understand it, by reading what others have to say about it. I'm not
sure I understand why the route I chose brings such a wrath from you.
If you'd care to explain, I'd be happy to listen.
>Only the fool ignores the wisdom of the milennia.
Yeah, well, only the doomed ignore the tragedies of history, and you
don't need to read very much to understand that! In fact, a newspaper
is pretty well sufficient for that purpose, if closely considered.
>g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m g r a d a t i m
>Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick - Substantialist Rationalist/Mystic/Madman
>http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ g u r k @ n c s u . e d u -------
Are the towers really ivory there? It must be very pretty.
"Vacuum," indeed.
jk
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
: Well, it may have come across a bit stronger than I meant! But I will
: say that I'm of the opinion that "correct" and "true" don't
: appropriately belong with "belief system".
Ah. You don't believe that beliefs can be true or correct. So we really
have nothing to talk about.
: >Indeed, as long as you stoop to converse with us mere mortals, you are
: >affected by everything you see and hear.
: Sure, but so what? We have finite time---I choose to understand
: reality by sensing as much of it as possible. Others may choose to
: understand it, by reading what others have to say about it. I'm not
: sure I understand why the route I chose brings such a wrath from you.
: If you'd care to explain, I'd be happy to listen.
It is not wrath, I assure you. :)
I said what I did, because you said quite plainly that you felt you could
come up with a belief system (though, if it is neither "true" nor
"correct," I don't know why you hold it, particularly when you say you're
searching for truth) which would be...uh..."OK"...without reading anything.
I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the ability
of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to formulate a
working paradigm of the world. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
: >Only the fool ignores the wisdom of the milennia.
: Yeah, well, only the doomed ignore the tragedies of history, and you
: don't need to read very much to understand that! In fact, a newspaper
: is pretty well sufficient for that purpose, if closely considered.
That is not what I was talking about, and I made it quite plain.
: Are the towers really ivory there? It must be very pretty.
I do not live in an ivory tower. I walk the earth, like everyone else.
I simply state what I see. If if gives you an inferiority complex, it's
not my fault. I don't claim to be superior.
: "Vacuum," indeed.
Indeed.
--Gurk
--
i n p r i n c i p i o e r a t S e r m o n e Substantialist Poiema
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick gu...@ncsu.edu
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 11 Jun 1997 04:40:41 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
wanted to share:
:In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
:
:: Well, it may have come across a bit stronger than I meant! But I will
:: say that I'm of the opinion that "correct" and "true" don't
:: appropriately belong with "belief system".
:
:Ah. You don't believe that beliefs can be true or correct. So we really
:have nothing to talk about.
One thing I've found in common between Christians and Objectivists. They are
both very quick to find excuses NOT to talk to each other.
:I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the ability
:of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to formulate a
:working paradigm of the world. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
:of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
:Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window like you
just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells you something that
is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
:I do not live in an ivory tower. I walk the earth, like everyone else.
:I simply state what I see. If if gives you an inferiority complex, it's
:not my fault. I don't claim to be superior.
But you claim a superior source of knowledge. And by definition, that
knowledge MUST be superior to our knowledge.
So yes, you DO claim to be superior, in a way.
You've set up a system where your FEELINGS are more important than your
intellect. That frightens me.
We must always question our emotions. We must question our intuition. We
must question our premises. And yes, when we hear that "still, small voice of
God" we must question it. We must analyze what is said to realize if it
really did come from God, or if our own desires are bubbling to the surface,
pretending to be the Will of God.
To do otherwise is to abandon your own mind.
Jaffo
--
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels
in the forms of kings to govern him?" -- Thomas Jefferson
Louis Nick III
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on 11 Jun 1997 04:40:41 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
> wanted to share:
> :In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
> :: Well, it may have come across a bit stronger than I meant! But I will
> :: say that I'm of the opinion that "correct" and "true" don't
> :: appropriately belong with "belief system".
> :
> :Ah. You don't believe that beliefs can be true or correct. So we really
> :have nothing to talk about.
>
> One thing I've found in common between Christians and Objectivists. They are
> both very quick to find excuses NOT to talk to each other.
Both have fundamental beliefs that they may not question and remain
Christian or Objectivist.
> :I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the ability
> :of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to formulate a
> :working paradigm of the world. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
> :of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
> :Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
>
> It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window like you
> just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells you something that
> is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
Okay, I can't speak for the inner voice of God(TM), but Einstein was not
the image we have and hold for him these days. He was religious, so much
so that he sacrificed his science at times. He was a genius, in one way
of looking at it, but not for what he is most reknowned. His excellence
was shown in Brownian Motion, and the Photoelectric effect, for which he
received the Nobel Prize. Special Relativity, as he created it, could
only be created by someone like him, influenced by everything from his
Swiss Patent Office job to being religious, and it was his rational skills
that allowed him to create the specialized mathematical methods that were
required to understand it, not his context that created them. He was a
skilled scientist, and for some reason, popular, so we tend to see him as
a genius at a time when scientists were increasingly regarded as eggheads,
heads off in the theoretical clouds, and thus not capable of life as we
know it. Just look at his hair, his ratty old sweaters, etc. Einstein
didn't claim to know, understand, or believe in everything. He talked
about human knowledge. A proper Christian is easily disposed to believe
that 100% of human knowledge is not sufficient for "truth" because that
negates personal truth, etc. Anyway, and an objectivist who lives by his
senses *believes* he is living by the truth because he *believes* there is
no difference. These are fundamental truths that I would recommend
questioning for each of these groups.
> :I do not live in an ivory tower. I walk the earth, like everyone else.
> :I simply state what I see. If if gives you an inferiority complex, it's
> :not my fault. I don't claim to be superior.
>
> But you claim a superior source of knowledge. And by definition, that
> knowledge MUST be superior to our knowledge.
Eh, there's really no comparison between the two knowledges. Obviously,
the sources are different, but the knowledge is incomparable because they
have different premises.
> So yes, you DO claim to be superior, in a way.
I consider Andy at least my equal. I hope that does not offend him.
> You've set up a system where your FEELINGS are more important than your
> intellect. That frightens me.
Fright? It would concern me.
> We must always question our emotions. We must question our intuition. We
> must question our premises. And yes, when we hear that "still, small voice of
> God" we must question it. We must analyze what is said to realize if it
> really did come from God, or if our own desires are bubbling to the surface,
> pretending to be the Will of God.
Live your life as you must; I say there is no way to tell the difference
between a real voice and a perceived voice that convinces you it is real.
> To do otherwise is to abandon your own mind.
http://www.scifi.com/freezone/mst3000/mst3k.ram
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
: :I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the ability
: :of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to formulate a
: :working paradigm of the world. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
: :of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
: :Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
: It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window
: like you just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells
: you something that is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
First, I do not believe that reason is above all. As to the voice of God,
well, He has never told me anything which seemed antithetical to my mind,
except where I was holding an untrue belief. The way it usually works
(though this is difficult to describe in concrete terms) is that He'll
bring my attention to a view or action in my head and it'll appear quite
plainly to be somewhat ridiculous or wrong. I'll investigate it further,
often reading stuff in the Bible or by the ancients or by friends whom I
respect, and I'll see -how- it is ridiculous or wrong.
Thus, the voice of God spurs my intellect. If I am at all smart, it is
because He has kicked me in the head, so to speak, when I needed it.
: :I do not live in an ivory tower. I walk the earth, like everyone else.
: :I simply state what I see. If if gives you an inferiority complex, it's
: :not my fault. I don't claim to be superior.
: But you claim a superior source of knowledge. And by definition, that
: knowledge MUST be superior to our knowledge.
: So yes, you DO claim to be superior, in a way.
No. I just claim to be working for the most superior entity in the
Universe. I'm not a perfect representative, though. I fail to carry
out my duties regularly.
: You've set up a system where your FEELINGS are more important than your
: intellect. That frightens me.
Oh, not at all. I do not consider hearing the voice of God to be a
"feeling."
: We must always question our emotions. We must question our intuition. We
: must question our premises. And yes, when we hear that "still, small voice of
: God" we must question it. We must analyze what is said to realize if it
: really did come from God, or if our own desires are bubbling to the surface,
: pretending to be the Will of God.
Then you test it against the Bible and against other sources. Where it
proved true by the Bible, it has never, ever failed me. Never. In fact,
it is not only true by the Bible, but it works quite well in my day-to-day
life. Funny how that works.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick T2, Technical Staph, Stewart Theatre, NCSU
t h e a t r e l i g h t i n g g e e k e x t r a o r d i n a i r e
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Louis Nick III a stately USENET-post decree:
: > One thing I've found in common between Christians and Objectivists. They are
: > both very quick to find excuses NOT to talk to each other.
: Both have fundamental beliefs that they may not question and remain
: Christian or Objectivist.
Oh, I can question my beliefs. I do all the time, in fact. Real
Christians -do- ask why. (Which happens to be the title of a book,
incidentally.) The questioning leads to strengthening, revision,
and deeper understanding.
: I consider Andy at least my equal. I hope that does not offend him.
Well, just as long as you don't put me in your iced tea.
--Gurk
--
_/-_|\ Andrew S. Damick http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
| | Prophet du Smerp Proto-Eminent Substantialist
\_-__* <----- Garner, NC g u r k @ n c s u . e d u
Louis Nick III
On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Louis Nick III a stately USENET-post decree:
> : > One thing I've found in common between Christians and Objectivists. They are
> : > both very quick to find excuses NOT to talk to each other.
>
> : Both have fundamental beliefs that they may not question and remain
> : Christian or Objectivist.
>
> Oh, I can question my beliefs. I do all the time, in fact. Real
> Christians -do- ask why. (Which happens to be the title of a book,
> incidentally.) The questioning leads to strengthening, revision,
> and deeper understanding.
Yes, yes, some beliefs. But there are certain answers to certain
questions that you cannot (may not) accept without severely modifying your
belief system.
Was Jesus Christ the son of God?
Does God exist objectively?
Is your belief in God a figment of your humanity?
Will I pass the final I have at 2:30?
Is it possible that Jim Klein is correct?
How many angels yada yada pin?
> : I consider Andy at least my equal. I hope that does not offend him.
> Well, just as long as you don't put me in your iced tea.
I never really thought of you as a sweetener, but your posts taste great
straight. Michael Straight will make funnee funnee joke now.
Jim Klein
In <5nla89$l...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>Ah. You don't believe that beliefs can be true or correct. So we
>really have nothing to talk about.
I didn't exactly say that. Generally, a "belief system" refers to an
overlying philosophy which incorporates subsequent attitudes about what
"true" or "correct" mean. What I was referring to is that I try to use
the two words to refer to ACTUAL reality, independent of any belief
system.
>I said what I did, because you said quite plainly that you felt you
>could come up with a belief system (though, if it is neither "true"
>nor "correct," I don't know why you hold it, particularly when you say
>you're searching for truth) which would be...uh..."OK"...without
>reading anything.
>
>I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the
>ability of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to
>formulate a working paradigm of the world.
Why, do you know of a functioning adult, who doesn't?
>Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
>of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
>Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
More than enough, apparently. He did base a worldview upon it, didn't
he? Doesn't each of us, with our own respective knowledge?
>I do not live in an ivory tower. I walk the earth, like everyone
>else. I simply state what I see. If if gives you an inferiority
>complex, it's not my fault. I don't claim to be superior.
Surely I don't strike you as having an inferiority complex, do I?
jk
Jim Klein
In <33ab3e33...@news.onramp.net> ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) writes:
>For example, I am comforted to know that Alan Greenspan is/was an
>Objectivist. I respect his knowledge of the economy, his beliefs give
>credibility to mine.
Only reality can give your beliefs credibility of any value. Besides,
you DON'T know what Greenspan's beliefs are; nobody does, apparently.
>Does this mean I'm weak for seeking credibility?
No, because you seek credibility as an indirect way of seeking
knowledge. The goal is good; the means less so.
>I don't think this fact ALONE is enough to justify any of my ideas. I
>just find comfort in the knowledge that someone I respect thinks the
>same things I do.
Everybody does, to some degree. But that's because people we respect
have a good grasp on reality (if it's knowledge of reality we seek).
>What's the difference between respecting people and surrending your
>mind to them?
The same as the difference between living and dying.
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.970610...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Since it is true that our senses are fault-ridden,
Way to beg the argument! That's not true. The senses MAY yield
inaccurate data, but they are NOT "fault-ridden". Actually, they are
"fact-ridden". You tell me, what do they relay, if not reality?
>yet we live our lives by their input, whther or not it has any
>correlation to "truth" or not.
No, we live our lives by their input BECAUSE it has correlation to the
truth.
>Obviously, there is some question as to how useful our senses are at
>perceiving truth,
No again---there is some question as to their accuracy perhaps, but
there is NO question as to how useful they are. And the answer is,
fully.
>but provided that you _believe_ there is some correlation, then I
>would accept your objectivist views as a natural consequence.
On what would you rely, for your acceptance?
>However, if there is only partial correlation between that "the Truth"
>and that which sensors produce, that is, their output to be
>interpreted, or even no correlation at all,
Oh, please. Like you don't use your senses to eat, and stay alive. If
it's just arbitrary, why not try NOT doing that, for a year?
>then we can consider your truth to be, as far as the sensor is
>concerned, completely arbitrary.
Nice twist! The evidence of the senses is "completely arbitrary", but
the consideration that we don't know ANYTHING is what---"logical"?
>That is, we (in this case) cannot judge what is truth and what is
>noise. Therefore, we cannot rely on our senses to correctly interpret
>"truth", and hence cannot live by "truth." In this case, therefore
>(and one in which I live), the "truth" is as irrelevant to my life as
>the Uberuniverse.
How about your keyboard...is that irrelevant, as well?
>Again, if sensing is approriate or even effective to determine truth.
>It is your belief that it is, and I do not share this belief
Of course you do. You've lived at least a week since I've known you;
this REQUIRED the use of your senses.
>Depends on the newspaper. I like the first two sections of the WSJ,
>but that's just me. I'm of the opinion that historical evidence can
>be used to create models of modern events, but frankly, history is too
>random to ever "repeat itself." No matter how accurate the model, it
>is only a model, lacking in some essential part or nature that
>separates it from the real thing.
Here we agree, except that I would replace "random" with "different".
jk
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Louis Nick III a stately USENET-post decree:
: Yes, yes, some beliefs. But there are certain answers to certain
: questions that you cannot (may not) accept without severely modifying your
: belief system.
: Was Jesus Christ the son of God?
: Does God exist objectively?
: Is your belief in God a figment of your humanity?
: Will I pass the final I have at 2:30?
: Is it possible that Jim Klein is correct?
: How many angels yada yada pin?
Actually, you can mostly base it around a couple of questions:
Is the Bible historically sound?
Did Christ raise Himself from the dead?
The first is answered pretty easily with some good research, some of which
I've done, enough to convince me, in any event. The second question cannot
be fully answered with logic alone. Sure, there is enough evidence for an
affirmative to stand up in a US court these days (according to a once-atheist
Harvard Law prof whose name escapes me at the moment), but you cannot prove
the Resurrection.
Of course, I can't prove to you that I ate at Char-Grill today.
: > : I consider Andy at least my equal. I hope that does not offend him.
: > Well, just as long as you don't put me in your iced tea.
: I never really thought of you as a sweetener, but your posts taste great
: straight. Michael Straight will make funnee funnee joke now.
Not really. You see, I'm an aberration hereabouts. I ask for "sweet tea"
at restaurants, and that's really redundant. Michael Straight, being a
native (AFAIK) probably doesn't actually believe in the existence,
self-evident or otherwise, of unsweetened tea.
--Gurk
--
The Stewart Theatre Technical Crew: In Search of Squish
- - http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwelliot/WWW/squish.html - -
"The day we stop looking, Charlie, is the day we die."
-Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman
Jim Klein
In <5nmu0t$3...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>Thus, the voice of God spurs my intellect. If I am at all smart, it
>is because He has kicked me in the head, so to speak, when I needed
>it.
Myself, I believe in the sanctity of the individual, since sanctity is
a value, and value has no meaning except in the context of an
individual. Hence, I'm not one to denigrate whatever it is that
motivates an individual, whether it be God, or work, or family, or mud
worshipping.
I've had enough discussions that I recognize that even my pleas to
objective reality, in the end, are reduced to an axiom themselves,
specifically that A is A. To ME, there is good reason to accept that,
reason that is unarguable. But still, because we are necessarily
limited by our frames of reference, there is really no outside claim I
can appeal to, to say that it's absolutely proven. I can just appeal
to how obvious it is, and the sort of contradictions that arise if it's
not. Since the nature of an axiom is that it can't be PROVEN from
within the system of which it's axiomatic, and since this particular
axiom is axiomatic of everything (i.e., there is no "outside of the
system"), if someone wants to claim that at it's very core, I have
accepted this on faith, I really have no basis on which to deny it.
I recognize this, FWIW. But my goal in discussion is not to establish
the truth of my "belief system". My goal, as for any egoist, is to
stay alive and flourish.
>No. I just claim to be working for the most superior entity in the
>Universe. I'm not a perfect representative, though. I fail to carry
>out my duties regularly.
See, here is where the trouble usually starts, though I have no idea
how you personally view your "duties". Generally, the duties of a
religionist involve not only the spreading of his belief system, an
innocent enough task in itself, but in the physical establishment of
"righteousness", and the attempt to live in a world consistent with his
view, the essential principle of which is that a human life is NOT the
most valuable thing in the world.
Often, egoism and religion become incompatible, in two humans living in
proximity to each other. And I'm sorry to say, the fault inevitably
lies with the religionist. The egoist may live a life fully compatible
with his principles, asking nothing of the religionist, nor interfering
in his beliefs in any way. Most often, that is not true of the
religionist. For him to live in a world where "concern for others" or
"respect for God" or "moral righteousness" is extant, DOES require that
he interfere with the life of the egoist, most often through political
means. And political means rest upon only one thing---the use of
force. This is what I find to be an abomination, and I fight it
whether it comes from a religionist, or an obstinate Objectivist.
Lately, it's more common coming from the latter, than the former.
Since religion can manifest itself in so many ways in different
individuals, I wouldn't want to give the impression that I think
there's something wrong with religious belief, in and of itself. Well,
there may be something wrong in that it's incorrect, but I don't think
being incorrect is any crime at all. It's when the MEANS to the
religionist's ENDS involve the interference in other people's lives,
that I'll really have something to say.
In fact, for the last decade or so, I find my personal values to be
much more closely aligned with devout Christians, than with any other
single group of people. But personal values are just that---to be
determined by the person. When the values are sought to be
"established" (read forced) into the actions of others, then we part
company.
jk
Michael Straight
On 12 Jun 1997, Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Not really. You see, I'm an aberration hereabouts. I ask for "sweet tea"
> at restaurants, and that's really redundant. Michael Straight, being a
> native (AFAIK) probably doesn't actually believe in the existence,
> self-evident or otherwise, of unsweetened tea.
Ha! My fake ASCII accent fooled you! I'm from Ohio too.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Louis Nick III
On 12 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> In <33ab3e33...@news.onramp.net> ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) writes:
> >For example, I am comforted to know that Alan Greenspan is/was an
> >Objectivist. I respect his knowledge of the economy, his beliefs give
> >credibility to mine.
>
> Only reality can give your beliefs credibility of any value. Besides,
> you DON'T know what Greenspan's beliefs are; nobody does, apparently.
Personally, I think that most of the economic content of news broadcasts
should not be unemmployment, new housing starts, etc, but how Greenspan is
doing. You know, if his hemerhoids have flared up, so we know to expect
higher interest, or if he enjoyed the garlic-parmesan pasta for lunch, so
interest rates can go down before the heatburn sets in.
Back when I had a group project to define a Utopian society, and we
decided on installing a colony in the US/Canadian Border, but we decided
that it could only be Utopia if we took Alan Greenspan with us.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 12 Jun 1997 05:04:46 GMT, Jim Klein wanted to
share:
:Only reality can give your beliefs credibility of any value. Besides,
:you DON'T know what Greenspan's beliefs are; nobody does, apparently.
To give you an idea of just how much Greenspan fascinates me, please allow me
to shamelessly drop a name and quote from a recent email:
"I think Greenspan would say his philosophical views are the same as they
always were. And that includes his libertarianism." -- Nathaniel Branden
I realize we have no way of knowing what Greenspan's beliefs really are, but I
figure his old friend can make a pretty good guess.
*Shrug*
Louis Nick III
On 12 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >Since it is true that our senses are fault-ridden,
> Way to beg the argument! That's not true. The senses MAY yield
> inaccurate data, but they are NOT "fault-ridden". Actually, they are
> "fact-ridden". You tell me, what do they relay, if not reality?
If the are sensors, then they interpret and introduce errors into
everything they see. But we have nothing to calibrate them against. So we
can't tell what's "really" there. If they are not sensors (an argument
that needs to be brought up, but thrown away as quickly), they are just a
feed of, I dunno, what God wants us to see/hear/etc. or some such feed of
signal.
> >yet we live our lives by their input, whther or not it has any
> >correlation to "truth" or not.
>
> No, we live our lives by their input BECAUSE it has correlation to the
> truth.
We can't calibrate our sensors, thus we have *no* way of knowing what is
real from sensor input. We can't tell, to put it in detector talk, which
is signal and which is noise, and which of the noise is artifact of the
sensor. Unless the sensors are "perfect" and "ideal," which I know is not
true because of the variance in quality of sensors and sensor ability
among humans. We live our lives by the input of our sensors, but I have
corrected eyes, my nose ignores my own existence, my ears can't hear
vibrations that I am convinced (by other means) exist, and I can't
acknowledge the existence of that one spot on my back with my hands.
> >Obviously, there is some question as to how useful our senses are at
> >perceiving truth,
>
> No again---there is some question as to their accuracy perhaps, but
> there is NO question as to how useful they are. And the answer is,
> fully.
Well, What else *could* you use? Obviously, they are inherently useful if
that's all you use. And if you couldn't live by your sensors, then you
would cease to accept information. That's obviously why humans have given
up their psychic abilities, the sense of frozz, and the sense of morbic.
Since it is not useful, we ignore --to the point of denial-- our senses of
other people's thoughts, frozz, and morbic, to give examples.
> >but provided that you _believe_ there is some correlation, then I
> >would accept your objectivist views as a natural consequence.
>
> On what would you rely, for your acceptance?
I'd have to see things objectively to belief in objectivity. But you just
say that you believe that there is great correlation between what your
senses tell you, and what the "truth" is. Acknowledge that this is a
belief, and assumption, and that you could possibly be wrong about it.
Objectivity is this belief (among others) in a form of truth, not a solid
grasp of it.
> >However, if there is only partial correlation between that "the Truth"
> >and that which sensors produce, that is, their output to be
> >interpreted, or even no correlation at all,
>
> Oh, please. Like you don't use your senses to eat, and stay alive. If
> it's just arbitrary, why not try NOT doing that, for a year?
I told you, I live pragmatically. My instincts tell me to eat. Second,
you make the case that there is more than zero correlation, not that there
is any significant amount of sameness between "truth" and the reality we
perceive. Besides, if I go without food for a year, my sensors will feed
me different information. For a while, my perceived body is "hungry,"
my perceptions are that of a hospital, followed by the same sort of senses
as though I had eaten as well as nutrician. I could just "stay" in the
"hospital" for a "year" (concepts you clearly take as granted reality) and
my sensors would not stop transmitting.
> >then we can consider your truth to be, as far as the sensor is
> >concerned, completely arbitrary.
>
> Nice twist! The evidence of the senses is "completely arbitrary", but
> the consideration that we don't know ANYTHING is what---"logical"?
Logic, while purely a project of culture, still is something that says it
is correct. Live pragmatically. The truth won't follow.
> >That is, we (in this case) cannot judge what is truth and what is
> >noise. Therefore, we cannot rely on our senses to correctly interpret
> >"truth", and hence cannot live by "truth." In this case, therefore
> >(and one in which I live), the "truth" is as irrelevant to my life as
> >the Uberuniverse.
>
> How about your keyboard...is that irrelevant, as well?
>
>
> >Again, if sensing is approriate or even effective to determine truth.
> >It is your belief that it is, and I do not share this belief
>
> Of course you do. You've lived at least a week since I've known you;
> this REQUIRED the use of your senses.
>
>
> >Depends on the newspaper. I like the first two sections of the WSJ,
> >but that's just me. I'm of the opinion that historical evidence can
> >be used to create models of modern events, but frankly, history is too
> >random to ever "repeat itself." No matter how accurate the model, it
> >is only a model, lacking in some essential part or nature that
> >separates it from the real thing.
>
> Here we agree, except that I would replace "random" with "different".
>
>
> jk
>
>
--
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Michael Straight a stately USENET-post decree:
I, sir, am not from Ohio[1].
--Gurk, hmf!
[1] finger gu...@cheetah.catt.ncsu.edu
--
gu...@ncsu.edu ||
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick ||
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/ ||
4 A REELY GOOD TIME: finger gu...@cheetah.catt.ncsu.edu ||
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
: Often, egoism and religion become incompatible, in two humans living in
: proximity to each other. And I'm sorry to say, the fault inevitably
: lies with the religionist. The egoist may live a life fully compatible
: with his principles, asking nothing of the religionist, nor interfering
: in his beliefs in any way. Most often, that is not true of the
: religionist. For him to live in a world where "concern for others" or
: "respect for God" or "moral righteousness" is extant, DOES require that
: he interfere with the life of the egoist, most often through political
: means.
Wrongo.
You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of...well, just about
everything about any major religion.
: In fact, for the last decade or so, I find my personal values to be
: much more closely aligned with devout Christians, than with any other
: single group of people. But personal values are just that---to be
: determined by the person. When the values are sought to be
: "established" (read forced) into the actions of others, then we part
: company.
Well, for one thing, if you are not an anarchist, you believe in the
establishment of SOME values or other, which requires force to maintain,
if only to protect from the murderers and rapists. You just seem to think
that religious values have no place in determining one's views of values
which may be enforced by the state. For another thing, any devout
Christian does not go about attempting to persuade people to his viewpoint
(as if any human could persaude someone to belief in God! God calls us of
His own accord) by using force to "establish" his values. Now, I might
support force to establish certain values, such as the immorality of
murder, but I wouldn't support its use to bring to light the Truth of
Christianity.
--Gurk
P.S. And I think your "A == A" business is really mere label-gaming, as
if the very notion of identity would lead one to objectivism!
--
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ gu...@ncsu.edu Andrew S. Damick
substantialist | companion | human | poet | author | believer | communicator
- - - - - - - d e u s j u v a t - - - - - - -
Steven Ehrbar
On 12 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> >For example, I am comforted to know that Alan Greenspan is/was an
> >Objectivist. I respect his knowledge of the economy, his beliefs give
> >credibility to mine.
>
> you DON'T know what Greenspan's beliefs are; nobody does, apparently.
He might not be one now, and he might never have been completely one,
but... Well, he wrote a bunch of Objectivist-sounding essays in
"Capitallism: The Unknown Ideal", which currently is printed with Ayn
Rand's name in big bold letters on the cover. And he had difficulty being
taken seriously in Washington, D.C. in the late Seventies/early Eighties
because he was believed to be an Objectivist by the "power brokers" (at
least that's what David Stockman [Reagan's firsst-term budget director]
said in his book "The Triumph of Politics").
Jim Klein
>"I think Greenspan would say his philosophical views are the same as
>they always were. And that includes his libertarianism." --
>Nathaniel Branden
>
>I realize we have no way of knowing what Greenspan's beliefs really
>are, but I figure his old friend can make a pretty good guess.
That's the problem---it's a guess. Plus, we don't care what Greenspan
would say his philosophical views are; we care about what they are.
It's one of the great mysteries of modern times, IMO. And he's not
getting any younger, and we're not getting any freer. He'll have to
show his hand eventually, I suppose.
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.970612...@becker1.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>If the are sensors, then they interpret and introduce errors into
>everything they see. But we have nothing to calibrate them against.
Sure we do---reality. And we're smart enough to come up with
independent means of identification, all of which support the idea that
things really do exist, and that we're capable of sensing them.
>So we can't tell what's "really" there.
With perfect reliance? No, we can't. But that hardly addresses
whether anything is there, nor whether our senses serve the purpose of
identifying it, both of which are true.
>If they are not sensors (an argument that needs to be brought up, but
>thrown away as quickly),
Why?? Doesn't your POV really depend on the possibility that they're
NOT sensors?
>they are just a feed of, I dunno, what God wants us to see/hear/etc.
>or some such feed of signal.
Pure signal, and no referrent, right? Okay, but to me that yields that
A isn't A; A is just what we perceive as A, with no underlying
existent. As I've admitted, I find that unacceptable.
>> >yet we live our lives by their input, whther or not it has any
>> >correlation to "truth" or not.
>>
>> No, we live our lives by their input BECAUSE it has correlation to
>>the truth.
>
>We can't calibrate our sensors, thus we have *no* way of knowing what
>is real from sensor input. We can't tell, to put it in detector talk,
>which is signal and which is noise, and which of the noise is artifact
>of the sensor. Unless the sensors are "perfect" and "ideal," which I
>know is not true because of the variance in quality of sensors and
>sensor ability among humans. We live our lives by the input of our
>sensors, but I have corrected eyes, my nose ignores my own existence,
>my ears can't hear vibrations that I am convinced (by other means)
>exist, and I can't acknowledge the existence of that one spot on my
>back with my hands.
But we're not discussing whether the sensors are perfect, or even
whether they could be. We're discussing whether it's the nature of the
senses to reflect a reality which exists independently of ourselves.
And there _has_ been independent verification of that, in that we're
able to confirm our sensory evidence with tools that don't have the
limitation of being hooked directly into our brain. Sure, our sensory
input from THOSE is still subject to interpretation, and whatever
limits our senses have, but now you'd have to posit a giant game being
played by some controlling consciousness to explain that away. Which
would yield again that A is not A; A is only what the uberbrain(!)
wants us to think it is.
>> >Obviously, there is some question as to how useful our senses are
>> >at perceiving truth,
>>
>> No again---there is some question as to their accuracy perhaps, but
>> there is NO question as to how useful they are. And the answer is,
>> fully.
>
>Well, What else *could* you use? Obviously, they are inherently
>useful if that's all you use. And if you couldn't live by your
>sensors, then you would cease to accept information. That's obviously
>why humans have given up their psychic abilities, the sense of frozz,
>and the sense of morbic.
>Since it is not useful, we ignore --to the point of denial-- our
>senses of other people's thoughts, frozz, and morbic, to give
>examples.
Well, I wouldn't want to deny that which isn't known not to be there
(except uberbrains which cause A to not be A). But you're putting the
cart before the horse, IMO. What you're talking about here is fuller
development of the senses, as well as a more refined interpretation of
them. I don't see how denial of that which will accomplish the purpose
serves the goal very well.
>> >but provided that you _believe_ there is some correlation, then I
>> >would accept your objectivist views as a natural consequence.
>>
>> On what would you rely, for your acceptance?
>
>I'd have to see things objectively to belief in objectivity. But you
>just say that you believe that there is great correlation between what
>your senses tell you, and what the "truth" is. Acknowledge that this
>is a belief, and assumption, and that you could possibly be wrong
>about it.
If A is not A, then I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I say, but then
true and false would really have no referrent, would they? IOW, all
discussion, and all sensory input, and all life, would be meaningless,
at least at the level we exist upon. So no, I'd sooner say that "A is
not A" is meaningless, rather than "it could be right."
>Objectivity is this belief (among others) in a form of truth, not a
>solid grasp of it.
It's the belief that a reality exists, independently of our observation
or interpratation of it. And yes, it quickly derives that our senses
are reflective of it. But no, it doesn't establish that our senses
can't err, though some formalists believe that it does.
>I told you, I live pragmatically. My instincts tell me to eat.
But it's not your instincts that you USE to eat!
>Second, you make the case that there is more than zero correlation,
>not that there is any significant amount of sameness between "truth"
>and the reality we perceive.
Maybe so, but that's all I need. Once there's more than zero
correlation, the rest becomes trying to make the correlation as great
as possible. Only with zero correlation could you really "throw out"
the senses. As you've mentioned, that's all we've got.
>Logic, while purely a project of culture, still is something that says
>it is correct. Live pragmatically. The truth won't follow.
Believe me, I see that!
jk
Louis Nick III
On 13 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >If the are sensors, then they interpret and introduce errors into
> >everything they see. But we have nothing to calibrate them against.
>
> Sure we do---reality. And we're smart enough to come up with
> independent means of identification, all of which support the idea that
> things really do exist, and that we're capable of sensing them.
You can't calibrate a sensor against what it was intend to sense unless
you know what you're looking at already. And since you can only detect
"reality" through sensors and faith, I guess you calibrate your eyes based
on faith that what they see is *there*.
> >So we can't tell what's "really" there.
>
> With perfect reliance? No, we can't. But that hardly addresses
> whether anything is there, nor whether our senses serve the purpose of
> identifying it, both of which are true.
To put it simply, I don't accept it whan you say those are true. It is
possible that they are true, it is possible that they are false. Either
way, we would receive the same data; there is no independant confirmation.
Whether anything is "really" there depends on how much faith you have in
your sensors of reveal reality. You have near-total such faith, I have
none to start with.
> >If they are not sensors (an argument that needs to be brought up, but
> >thrown away as quickly),
>
> Why?? Doesn't your POV really depend on the possibility that they're
> NOT sensors?
No, I just believe that there's no way to tell. They could be really
really crappy sensors. Or the sort of "feed" could be random, and
motivated by a deterministic agenda.
> >they are just a feed of, I dunno, what God wants us to see/hear/etc.
> >or some such feed of signal.
>
> Pure signal, and no referrent, right? Okay, but to me that yields that
> A isn't A; A is just what we perceive as A, with no underlying
> existent. As I've admitted, I find that unacceptable.
So do I, that's why I threw it out. But it does not yield A != A. It
yields that the first A may not exist, and the perception of the second A.
The second A is the perceived A, no?
> >We can't calibrate our sensors, thus we have *no* way of knowing what
> >is real from sensor input. We can't tell, to put it in detector talk,
> >which is signal and which is noise, and which of the noise is artifact
> >of the sensor. Unless the sensors are "perfect" and "ideal," which I
> >know is not true because of the variance in quality of sensors and
> >sensor ability among humans. We live our lives by the input of our
> >sensors, but I have corrected eyes, my nose ignores my own existence,
> >my ears can't hear vibrations that I am convinced (by other means)
> >exist, and I can't acknowledge the existence of that one spot on my
> >back with my hands.
>
> But we're not discussing whether the sensors are perfect, or even
> whether they could be. We're discussing whether it's the nature of the
> senses to reflect a reality which exists independently of ourselves.
> And there _has_ been independent verification of that, in that we're
In what form? In what way where sensors bypassed in this method?
> able to confirm our sensory evidence with tools that don't have the
> limitation of being hooked directly into our brain. Sure, our sensory
> input from THOSE is still subject to interpretation, and whatever
> limits our senses have, but now you'd have to posit a giant game being
> played by some controlling consciousness to explain that away. Which
> would yield again that A is not A; A is only what the uberbrain(!)
> wants us to think it is.
A doesn't have to "exist" as solid reality, see. Almost like you said, A
is only what Uberbrain wants us to sense. If it wants us to sense an A
(forgetting or ignoring for a moment the irrelevant fact that A's may
exist) then by its methods, through our sensors, we will smell/hear/touch/
taste/see an A.
> >Well, What else *could* you use? Obviously, they are inherently
> >useful if that's all you use. And if you couldn't live by your
> >sensors, then you would cease to accept information. That's obviously
> >why humans have given up their psychic abilities, the sense of frozz,
> >and the sense of morbic.
> >Since it is not useful, we ignore --to the point of denial-- our
> >senses of other people's thoughts, frozz, and morbic, to give
> >examples.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to deny that which isn't known not to be there
> (except uberbrains which cause A to not be A). But you're putting the
> cart before the horse, IMO. What you're talking about here is fuller
> development of the senses, as well as a more refined interpretation of
> them. I don't see how denial of that which will accomplish the purpose
> serves the goal very well.
Of course not, because more sense to you is closer to a better picture of
reality. But if that reality did not exist as you believe it, if it was a
random scatter of disorder to which order was applied by our senses, or
what not, and our sense of frozz, morbic, WOXWOX and suchforth received no
information at all, you were say that we don't actually have that sense.
> >I'd have to see things objectively to belief in objectivity. But you
> >just say that you believe that there is great correlation between what
> >your senses tell you, and what the "truth" is. Acknowledge that this
> >is a belief, and assumption, and that you could possibly be wrong
> >about it.
>
> If A is not A, then I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I say, but then
> true and false would really have no referrent, would they? IOW, all
> discussion, and all sensory input, and all life, would be meaningless,
> at least at the level we exist upon. So no, I'd sooner say that "A is
> not A" is meaningless, rather than "it could be right."
We're just talking about belief systems, and there are plenty of other
ideas in modern thinking to send you off the whole "it's all meaningless"
cliff. 1) It may well all be meaningless. Some would say this has been
proven already, with the Distance Scale, and Proton Decay, etc. 2) You
still have to live your life, because cultural beliefs outweigh
intellectual ones. Frankly, sir, what you won't accept, I rely on to keep
me sane. Meaningless in life is what makes me not take it seriously, and
makes me a much funnier person. 3) Your A is/is not A accepts the
existence of the A, and is only comprehensible in an objectivist realm.
That is to say, Step Back from A is/is not A. The world of thinking is
bigger than that.
> >Objectivity is this belief (among others) in a form of truth, not a
> >solid grasp of it.
>
> It's the belief that a reality exists, independently of our observation
> or interpratation of it. And yes, it quickly derives that our senses
> are reflective of it. But no, it doesn't establish that our senses
> can't err, though some formalists believe that it does.
I agree.
> >I told you, I live pragmatically. My instincts tell me to eat.
>
> But it's not your instincts that you USE to eat!
So you say. Do you know me better? Obviously not, since you can only
spew objectivism garbage without questioning it.
> >Second, you make the case that there is more than zero correlation,
> >not that there is any significant amount of sameness between "truth"
> >and the reality we perceive.
>
> Maybe so, but that's all I need. Once there's more than zero
> correlation, the rest becomes trying to make the correlation as great
> as possible. Only with zero correlation could you really "throw out"
> the senses. As you've mentioned, that's all we've got.
The rest for you is that. But what does that involve? Fixing the sensors
so there is perfect reality feed, right into your bRaN3? And what about
the next objectivist who comes along, and says "You're going in the wrong
direction, we want *more* correlation" and starts to screw up your work?
Will you then realize that objectivism has no grasp on truth, any more
than myself? Or will you dismiss him as a crackpot as he would soon do
you)?
I question what I sense, critically, thus I can never know the truth, but
I'm under the belief that nobody can, so I live by what my senses tell me.
Jim Klein
In <5nq4uh$t...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>: he interfere with the life of the egoist, most often through
>: political means.
>
>Wrongo.
>
>You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of...well, just about
>everything about any major religion.
Not at all---I wasn't commenting on the _purpose_; I was commenting on
the actuality.
>Well, for one thing, if you are not an anarchist, you believe in the
>establishment of SOME values or other, which requires force to
>maintain, if only to protect from the murderers and rapists.
Protection from rapists and murderers doesn't require values; it
requires guns and prisons. What I think you're talking about is the
_justification_ for that protection.
Is that how you know that rapists and murderers are bad and should be
dealt with forcefully---because of "societal values"? Are you implying
that if it weren't for your religious beliefs, or maybe the
"establishment" of values, that there wouldn't be any way to know that
murder and rape is wrong? If so, I disagree. If not, what ARE you
saying?
>You just seem to think that religious values have no place in
>determining one's views of values which may be enforced by the state.
No, I'm saying that NO individual has the right to enforce his values
at the point of a gun, upon others. But he DOES have the right to live
free, in accord with how he chooses his values, unencumbered by the
force of others. THAT'S the reason it's okay to use force against
rapists and murderers; they deny an individual the ability to live as
a rational being.
And don't bother with the "what about the freedom to murder" line.
Freedom has no meaning unless it applies to EACH individual; the
existence of a desire to murder removes the whole context, and hence
meaning, of freedom.
>For another thing, any devout Christian does not go about attempting
>to persuade people to his viewpoint (as if any human could persaude
>someone to belief in God!
Uh-huh. The set of people who proselytize is zero, right?
>God calls us of His own accord) by using force to "establish" his
>values. Now, I might support force to establish certain values,
Q.E.D.
>such as the immorality of murder,
Obviously, that's not one with which I really disagree. But I've got a
hunch there are a few more, aren't there?
>but I wouldn't support its use to bring to light the Truth of
>Christianity.
Okay, that's nice. Now, all we have to consider is the zillions of
other values, between the two. And then do THAT 5 billion times!
>P.S. And I think your "A == A" business is really mere label-gaming,
>as if the very notion of identity would lead one to objectivism!
I surely didn't mean to imply that "A is A" would lead one to
objectivism. FWIW, I'm considered an enemy by many formal
Objectivists, because I don't like dogma from them any more than I like
it from a religionist. [That's poorly worded. It's not that I don't
"like" it; I'm just vehemently opposed to either one of them being a
justification for forcibly stopping individual consent, which I think
is the essence of the nature of being human.]
Anyway, the primary appeal of Objectivism to me was Rand's derivation
of epistemology beginning with only "A is A". Plus, I think she did a
masterful job of integrating various aspects of human behavior, and
being able to explain them clearly. But overall, her writing had
little, if any, effect on my overall philosophy. I've been this way
all of my life; and I've always thought I had a right to live, the
opinions of some religionists notwithstanding.
jk
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
: Damick) writes:
: >: he interfere with the life of the egoist, most often through
: >: political means.
: >
: >Wrongo.
: >
: >You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of...well, just about
: >everything about any major religion.
: Not at all---I wasn't commenting on the _purpose_; I was commenting on
: the actuality.
Or, rather, your opinion of it. You have not only greatly misunderstood
the purpose and actuality of most major religions, but you've made the
mistake of judging a religion in principle by some self-serving adherents
in particular. How can you say that a "religionist" (whatever that means)
necessarily wants political action against the egoist? I have quite a
strong and well-defined religion, yet I don't want political action
against individualists (which, I'm assuming, is what you mean by
"egoist").
: >Well, for one thing, if you are not an anarchist, you believe in the
: >establishment of SOME values or other, which requires force to
: >maintain, if only to protect from the murderers and rapists.
: Protection from rapists and murderers doesn't require values; it
: requires guns and prisons. What I think you're talking about is the
: _justification_ for that protection.
Jim, you're just playing semantic categorization games here. Most humans
who band together and do anything which even remotely resembles
organization of any kind, particularly the sort which is for protection
from crime, do so because they have a set of values to enforce. Don't
wibble about. Discuss.
: Is that how you know that rapists and murderers are bad and should be
: dealt with forcefully---because of "societal values"? Are you implying
: that if it weren't for your religious beliefs, or maybe the
: "establishment" of values, that there wouldn't be any way to know that
: murder and rape is wrong? If so, I disagree. If not, what ARE you
: saying?
So, by your disagreement, you're saying that you know that murder and rape
are wrong, and you know this WITHOUT the use of ANY values of any sort?
Pardon me whilst I disbelieve, because, if you do genuinely believe this,
you're either insane or self-deluded to a degree that I have never yet
seen in a sane man.
: >You just seem to think that religious values have no place in
: >determining one's views of values which may be enforced by the state.
: No, I'm saying that NO individual has the right to enforce his values
: at the point of a gun, upon others. But he DOES have the right to live
: free, in accord with how he chooses his values, unencumbered by the
: force of others. THAT'S the reason it's okay to use force against
: rapists and murderers; they deny an individual the ability to live as
: a rational being.
Jim, using force against rapists and murderers IS enforcing values at the
point of a gun (or billy club, or whatever). Just what do you think
values are, anyway? They are the privileging of one thing over another,
the defining of one act as better than another, a hierarchy. If you put a
murderer in prison or in the zap-chair, you have labelled his actions as
being low enough on the hierarchy that you are justified in what you are
doing. The fact that the CONTENT of that action which is low in the
hierarchy is that of the restraining of an innocent's freedom is
immaterial. You have enforced your value: People who restrain an
innocent's freedom ought to be locked up or zapped.
: And don't bother with the "what about the freedom to murder" line.
: Freedom has no meaning unless it applies to EACH individual; the
: existence of a desire to murder removes the whole context, and hence
: meaning, of freedom.
You're circling round yourself, Jim. Ever read Rousseau? (Maybe not.)
Under his state of absolute freedom, the so-called State of Nature, every
man can do what he pleases. It is anarchy. As long as human beings are
finite creatures, there is no such thing as perfect freedom. You have
simply defined freedom as being a limited freedom, the old fist-nose
argument. Freedom in itself is not limited to EACH individual, not in the
sense that it cannot violate others' freedom, anyhow. Freedom is the
ability to act without restraint.
: >For another thing, any devout Christian does not go about attempting
: >to persuade people to his viewpoint (as if any human could persaude
: >someone to belief in God!
: Uh-huh. The set of people who proselytize is zero, right?
Proselytizing is not persuasion. Ever read the Book of Acts? (Oh, I
forgot. You don't read, because it would corrupt your pure thoughts. A
pity, since you're commenting on things you haven't read.) The Great
Commission says to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. That is
not "convert people" or "persuade people." Jesus Himself said that no man
could come to Him except that the Father called that man to himself. No
one was ever persuaded or argued into Christian belief. They were called
by God, and they accepted.
: >such as the immorality of murder,
: Obviously, that's not one with which I really disagree. But I've got a
: hunch there are a few more, aren't there?
Let's discuss what is being said, not what you have a "hunch" is not being
said, shall we? If you are to continue on your unbased inferences and
over-interpretations, discussion is impossible, for you would have passed
everything through your preconception filter, and communication would be
effectively blocked.
: Anyway, the primary appeal of Objectivism to me was Rand's derivation
: of epistemology beginning with only "A is A". Plus, I think she did a
: masterful job of integrating various aspects of human behavior, and
: being able to explain them clearly. But overall, her writing had
: little, if any, effect on my overall philosophy.
There are relatively few philosophies which outright deny the concept of
identity. Sure, some of them have come into vogue of late, but Rand's "A
is A" is merely a slick restatement of the basic idea of identity, and it
is by no means representative of a systematic method to epistemology.
: I've been this way
: all of my life; and I've always thought I had a right to live, the
: opinions of some religionists notwithstanding.
Jim, your slip is showing. Insulting the people with whom you discuss by
the unsupported suggestion that we think you don't have a "right to live"
is really rather unproductive. Is it your intention to converse, or is it
to mock? If it is the former, let's get down to it. If it is the latter,
let me know, and I'll ignore you from here on out.
--Gurk
--
t o h o l d f a s t t o R e a s o n a n d Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick Substantialist Writer/Poet gu...@ncsu.edu
t o l e a p f o r w a r d i n t o t h e M y s t e r y -------------
Jim Klein
In <5nusi7$2...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>: >You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of...well, just about
>: >everything about any major religion.
>
>: Not at all---I wasn't commenting on the _purpose_; I was commenting
>: on the actuality.
>
>Or, rather, your opinion of it. You have not only greatly
>misunderstood the purpose and actuality of most major religions, but
>you've made the mistake of judging a religion in principle by some
>self-serving adherents in particular.
I wouldn't want to do that! So I should have thrown in some
qualifiers: The vast majority of religionists, throughout all of human
history, have sought political control, of one form or another, over
others. Is that sufficiently clear?
>How can you say that a "religionist" (whatever that means)
>necessarily wants political action against the egoist? I have quite a
>strong and well-defined religion, yet I don't want political action
>against individualists (which, I'm assuming, is what you mean by
>"egoist").
I wasn't referring to egoists in particular; the "political action"
part was meant to be the emphasis. It's just the egoist who usually
take the most offense! I'm well aware that there are many exceptions;
Quakers come immediately to mind. I take you at your word that you're
an exception too, though I wonder what your opinion of taxation is.
Still, numerically, it's no match.
>:Is that how you know that rapists and murderers are bad and should be
>:dealt with forcefully---because of "societal values"? Are you
>:implying that if it weren't for your religious beliefs, or maybe the
>:"establishment" of values, that there wouldn't be any way to know
>:that murder and rape is wrong? If so, I disagree. If not, what ARE
>:you saying?
>
>So, by your disagreement, you're saying that you know that murder and
>rape are wrong, and you know this WITHOUT the use of ANY values of any
>sort?
>
>Pardon me whilst I disbelieve, because, if you do genuinely believe
>this, you're either insane or self-deluded to a degree that I have
>never yet seen in a sane man.
Then you must not be familiar with Ted Kennedy! Offhand, I'd say that
the "immorality" of murder and rape is prior to the concept of "value".
This would be because value has no meaning except in a context of
choice, and that context of choice can't exist with the imposition of
force. It's a tough call, since we don't really have a word for those
values which are _necessary_ for the existence of what I call "values",
which I reserve for what an individual chooses to value with his
rationality.
>Jim, using force against rapists and murderers IS enforcing values at
>the point of a gun (or billy club, or whatever). Just what do you
>think values are, anyway? They are the privileging of one thing over
>another, the defining of one act as better than another, a hierarchy.
>If you put a murderer in prison or in the zap-chair, you have labelled
>his actions as being low enough on the hierarchy that you are
>justified in what you are doing.
There's no question that the action taken upon a murderer or rapist
would fall within the classification of "value," even to me. Such a
discussion would involve considering and weighing the benefits and
hazards of retribution and retaliation, etc. But the original question
was why murder and rape are wrong. I think the answer to THAT can be
discovered without the appeal to "values", but rather just on the basis
of the nature of being human.
>: And don't bother with the "what about the freedom to murder" line.
>: Freedom has no meaning unless it applies to EACH individual; the
>: existence of a desire to murder removes the whole context, and hence
>: meaning, of freedom.
>
>You're circling round yourself, Jim. Ever read Rousseau? (Maybe
>not.)
Nope, but I've heard of him.
>Under his state of absolute freedom, the so-called State of Nature,
>every man can do what he pleases. It is anarchy. As long as human
>beings are finite creatures, there is no such thing as perfect
>freedom. You have simply defined freedom as being a limited freedom,
>the old fist-nose argument. Freedom in itself is not limited to EACH
>individual, not in the sense that it cannot violate others' freedom,
>anyhow. Freedom is the ability to act without restraint.
I disagree. Freedom, in a _political_ context, which is the context
here, means that if one person has it, every other person must have it,
as well. Otherwise, it's something other than freedom; it's
"existence by might" or something like that. In a physical sense, you
could say that a man stranded on an island is "free to do what he
wishes." But he would not "have freedom" in the way we mean it when we
discuss social interaction.
>:>For another thing, any devout Christian does not go about attempting
>:>to persuade people to his viewpoint (as if any human could persaude
>:>someone to belief in God!
>
>:Uh-huh. The set of people who proselytize is zero, right?
>
>Proselytizing is not persuasion.
I'm aware of that...it's the attempt to convert, basically. So, it the
set of people who've tried to do THAT, zero?
>Ever read the Book of Acts? (Oh, I forgot. You don't read, because
>it would corrupt your pure thoughts. A pity, since you're commenting
>on things you haven't read.)
That's an untrue charge. I've made no comments on anything I haven't
read; I've only commented on what I've seen, or been aware of. Name
one comment on something I've made, that I haven't read.
>The Great Commission says to go into all the world and preach the
>Gospel. That is not "convert people" or "persuade people." Jesus
>Himself said that no man could come to Him except that the Father
>called that man to himself. No one was ever persuaded or argued into
>Christian belief. They were called by God, and they accepted.
Says you. But the fact is that many, many people have been convinced
into religious belief by the words of other men. Obviously, I would
say that they ALL have!
>: >such as the immorality of murder,
>
>: Obviously, that's not one with which I really disagree. But I've
>: got a hunch there are a few more, aren't there?
>
>Let's discuss what is being said, not what you have a "hunch" is not
>being said, shall we? If you are to continue on your unbased
>inferences and over-interpretations, discussion is impossible, for you
>would have passed everything through your preconception filter, and
>communication would be effectively blocked.
Excuse me, but if you're going to be technical, then be technical. The
use of "such as" clearly implies that there are others. And there ARE
others, aren't there?
>There are relatively few philosophies which outright deny the concept
>of identity. Sure, some of them have come into vogue of late, but
>Rand's "A is A" is merely a slick restatement of the basic idea of
>identity, and it is by no means representative of a systematic method
>to epistemology.
On its own, of course not. What axiom possibly could be? It's the
derivations which represent a "systematic method to epistemology."
>: I've been this way
>: all of my life; and I've always thought I had a right to live, the
>: opinions of some religionists notwithstanding.
>
>Jim, your slip is showing. Insulting the people with whom you discuss
>by the unsupported suggestion that we think you don't have a "right to
>live" is really rather unproductive. Is it your intention to
>converse, or is it to mock?
I meant to neither insult nor mock; I just meant to describe. I'm
sorry if it struck a nerve within you, but that's how I see it.
>If it is the former, let's get down to it.
Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
another person that which he has earned?
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.970613...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>You can't calibrate a sensor against what it was intend to sense
>unless you know what you're looking at already. And since you can
>only detect "reality" through sensors and faith, I guess you calibrate
>your eyes based on faith that what they see is *there*.
Nope---all you really need to do is accept (on faith, if you wish) that
SOEMTHING is there. Then, the evolution of the senses serves as the
support that what they reflect is reality---again, what else would they
relfect? But no, that doesn't establish that they're perfectly
calibrated.
>> With perfect reliance? No, we can't. But that hardly addresses
>> whether anything is there, nor whether our senses serve the purpose
>> of identifying it, both of which are true.
>
>To put it simply, I don't accept it whan you say those are true. It
>is possible that they are true, it is possible that they are false.
>Either way, we would receive the same data; there is no independant
>confirmation.
>Whether anything is "really" there depends on how much faith you have
>in your sensors of reveal reality. You have near-total such faith, I
>have none to start with.
None?? Then how do you know which keys to strike, as you type?
>No, I just believe that there's no way to tell. They could be really
>really crappy sensors. Or the sort of "feed" could be random, and
>motivated by a deterministic agenda.
Right...A may not be A; it may be what the Uberbrain wants us to think
is A.
[big snip]
>3) Your A is/is not A accepts the existence of the A, and is only
>comprehensible in an objectivist realm.
No! It is only comprehensible, period. Anything else, and you're no
longer talking about comprehension.
>That is to say, Step Back from A is/is not A. The world of thinking
>is bigger than that.
No, it's not. You only have two real choices here. You can deny that
you exist, that anything exists, that your brain fuctions, that you're
a living organism, etc.---if you _really_ accepted that, you _would_
cease to function, and all of this would be moot.
But since you do exist, and continue to function, you have made certain
implicit assumptions, including the fact that what it is you do, is
identify. And if you're identifying, you must be identifying
_something_.
>The rest for you is that. But what does that involve? Fixing the
>sensors so there is perfect reality feed, right into your bRaN3? And
>what about the next objectivist who comes along, and says "You're
>going in the wrong direction, we want *more* correlation" and starts
>to screw up your work?
>Will you then realize that objectivism has no grasp on truth, any more
>than myself? Or will you dismiss him as a crackpot as he would soon
>do you)?
Objectivism isn't about "grasping truth"; that's what science is for.
Objectivism is about acknowledging that there IS such a thing as truth,
and what some of those truths imply.
>I question what I sense, critically, thus I can never know the truth,
You're saying more than that. You're saying that there may be no such
thing as truth.
>but I'm under the belief that nobody can, so I live by what my senses
>tell me.
And to you, what is it exactly that they tell you?
jk
Jaffo
Does reality change?
If so, HOW?
C Lowe
On 12 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> In <5nla89$l...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
> Damick) writes:
>
> >Ah. You don't believe that beliefs can be true or correct. So we
> >really have nothing to talk about.
>
Having said this why did you continue?
> I didn't exactly say that. Generally, a "belief system" refers to an
> overlying philosophy which incorporates subsequent attitudes about what
> "true" or "correct" mean. What I was referring to is that I try to use
> the two words to refer to ACTUAL reality, independent of any belief
> system.
>
>
> >I said what I did, because you said quite plainly that you felt you
> >could come up with a belief system (though, if it is neither "true"
> >nor "correct," I don't know why you hold it, particularly when you say
> >you're searching for truth) which would be...uh..."OK"...without
> >reading anything.
> >
> >I suppose it's OK to believe that, as long as you believe in the
> >ability of your own faculties to perceive and understand enough to
> >formulate a working paradigm of the world.
>
> Why, do you know of a functioning adult, who doesn't?
>
>
> >Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds
> >of all time, claimed to have something like 6% of all human knowledge.
>
> >Is 6% really enough data on which to base a worldview?
>
> More than enough, apparently. He did base a worldview upon it, didn't
> he? Doesn't each of us, with our own respective knowledge?
>
With all the knowledge in the world it would still be possible for
somebody to come up with the wrong worldview. Knowledge is one, minor,
part of forming a worldview. I would suggest some other essentials as
commonsense/wisdom and compassion.
CL
Otto Bahn
Jaffo wrote:
>
> Does reality change?
>
> If so, HOW?
Cliff Notes for Physics:
Things move. The rest is math.
--oTTo--
What did you mean by reality?
Louis Nick III
On 15 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >You can't calibrate a sensor against what it was intend to sense
> >unless you know what you're looking at already. And since you can
> >only detect "reality" through sensors and faith, I guess you calibrate
> >your eyes based on faith that what they see is *there*.
>
> SOEMTHING is there. Then, the evolution of the senses serves as the
> support that what they reflect is reality---again, what else would they
> relfect? But no, that doesn't establish that they're perfectly
> calibrated.
Your evolution argument is based on the assumption, the faith (as I wish),
that reality is assertive in molding sensors. We create our own sensors
based on what we believe reality is, yes. but reversing the cause and
effect is a dangerous thing for an objectivist.
> >> With perfect reliance? No, we can't. But that hardly addresses
> >> whether anything is there, nor whether our senses serve the purpose
> >> of identifying it, both of which are true.
> >
> >To put it simply, I don't accept it whan you say those are true. It
> >is possible that they are true, it is possible that they are false.
> >Either way, we would receive the same data; there is no independant
> >confirmation.
> >Whether anything is "really" there depends on how much faith you have
> >in your sensors of reveal reality. You have near-total such faith, I
> >have none to start with.
>
> None?? Then how do you know which keys to strike, as you type?
I strike according to what my sense tell me. My senses further tell me
that my letters appear on screen, and deductive reasoning based on sense-
gathered evidence indicates the conclusion (to live by) that the semblance
of letters and language are broadcast so that any Netcruiser can read
them. Of this, I have no guarantees, and no need for them. What you
"sense," you interpret and process, and manage to reply in a manner that
is consistent with your paradigm.
I don't make any claims about the existance of the keys, even though I
feel and see them.
> >3) Your A is/is not A accepts the existence of the A, and is only
> >comprehensible in an objectivist realm.
>
> No! It is only comprehensible, period. Anything else, and you're no
> longer talking about comprehension.
You assume the existance of A. A is a subset of the objectivist reality.
Therefore, A is/is not A is an objectivist concept, and may or may not be
meaningless outside it.
> >That is to say, Step Back from A is/is not A. The world of thinking
> >is bigger than that.
>
> No, it's not. You only have two real choices here. You can deny that
> you exist, that anything exists, that your brain fuctions, that you're
> a living organism, etc.---if you _really_ accepted that, you _would_
> cease to function, and all of this would be moot.
I deny nothing, I merely accept that there's no way to tell. And not
you're saying that if I _really_ believe all that, it would be true. Not
so, according to most schools of thought, including my own.
> But since you do exist, and continue to function, you have made certain
> implicit assumptions, including the fact that what it is you do, is
> identify. And if you're identifying, you must be identifying
> _something_.
There are some assumptions we cannot contain or surmount. For example,
you can't leap pasy the idea of objective reality. I can't leap past the
idea that absolute knowledge is not possible, because I see an inherant
contradiction within. For example. I categorize and bring order to a
possibly chaotic realm. That _something_ may well be *nothing*.
> >Will you then realize that objectivism has no grasp on truth, any more
> >than myself? Or will you dismiss him as a crackpot as he would soon
> >do you)?
>
> Objectivism isn't about "grasping truth"; that's what science is for.
> Objectivism is about acknowledging that there IS such a thing as truth,
> and what some of those truths imply.
Objectivist is about *believing* there is such a thing as truth.
> >I question what I sense, critically, thus I can never know the truth,
>
> You're saying more than that. You're saying that there may be no such
> thing as truth.
True, and I say that because there is no way to tell the difference
between a good enough illusion and the real thing, see. The "truth" may
well be that the universe is not solid, but a sort of newsfeed directly
inteo our senses, and it may be that the universe is the classic science-
produced universe, and There's No Way To Tell The Difference.
I'm saying that the truth as you see it may not exist, because there's no
way to tell. Your objectivist belief is that there is such a way. That
is where we disagree.
> >but I'm under the belief that nobody can, so I live by what my senses
> >tell me.
>
> And to you, what is it exactly that they tell you?
I could tell you, but I am more sure that too much would be lost in the
communication, rendering such a sensitive communication pointless, so I'll
leave your to your resident assumption (null hypothesis) that I sense the
same way you do.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
: Does reality change?
In what sense? From God's perspective, because He sees the whole timeline
at once, His own Present, nothing can change. Now, if we're dealing with
the human perspective within linear time, yes, reality changes constantly,
at least, the material portion of it. The immaterial in the greater sense
is always essentially the same.
--Gurk
--
t h e g e e k ' s e v e r y m a n - - - - - Literal Prophet of Smerp
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick, Poet, Prophet, Teacher, Healer, Actor, Human
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/ t h e e v e r y m a n ' s g e e k
Louis Nick III
On 15 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> >: >You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of...well, just about
> >: >everything about any major religion.
> >
> >: Not at all---I wasn't commenting on the _purpose_; I was commenting
> >: on the actuality.
Let me just say that it is the habit of regular readers of
alt.religion.kibology to use the phrase You Have Greatly Misunderstood The
Purpose of [anything] and that when Gurk says it, it is likely to mean
that you have misunderstood the nature of that which you are engaging. It
is a Kibological thing, with a little alt.fan.warlord Inner Circle thrown
in, and if Jim doesn't read this groups, we should make an effort not to
use these inside jokes (as I learned with Sept. 1993) because of their
inability to adequately communicate meaning to Jim.
> >Or, rather, your opinion of it. You have not only greatly
> >misunderstood the purpose and actuality of most major religions, but
> >you've made the mistake of judging a religion in principle by some
> >self-serving adherents in particular.
>
> I wouldn't want to do that! So I should have thrown in some
> qualifiers: The vast majority of religionists, throughout all of human
> history, have sought political control, of one form or another, over
> others. Is that sufficiently clear?
Members of religions run the spectrum, like all sets of humans, of the
ambitious and power-hungry. The fact that these people are found running
religions is purely coincidental, and thay would be doing the same if they
ran PACs, Parties, Companies, or Committees. Perhaps, indeed, their
religion had something to do with "making them that way," but people who
were similarly influenced might not turn out so power hungry. Throughout
human history, it was major religions groups and movements that were
credited with controlling the lives of people. The fact remains that
whoever has a more popular grasp on truth will hold the key to moving the
populace. And since history books only talk about religions groups and
heretics before about 1600...
> I wasn't referring to egoists in particular; the "political action"
> part was meant to be the emphasis. It's just the egoist who usually
> take the most offense! I'm well aware that there are many exceptions;
> Quakers come immediately to mind. I take you at your word that you're
> an exception too, though I wonder what your opinion of taxation is.
> Still, numerically, it's no match.
Your quoting removed any semblance of context for this statement.
Numerically, it's no match for what?
> >So, by your disagreement, you're saying that you know that murder and
> >rape are wrong, and you know this WITHOUT the use of ANY values of any
> >sort?
> >
> >Pardon me whilst I disbelieve, because, if you do genuinely believe
> >this, you're either insane or self-deluded to a degree that I have
> >never yet seen in a sane man.
>
> Then you must not be familiar with Ted Kennedy! Offhand, I'd say that
> the "immorality" of murder and rape is prior to the concept of "value".
> This would be because value has no meaning except in a context of
> choice, and that context of choice can't exist with the imposition of
> force. It's a tough call, since we don't really have a word for those
> values which are _necessary_ for the existence of what I call "values",
> which I reserve for what an individual chooses to value with his
> rationality.
There is not objective human morality, and since God has been reduced to a
smaller portion of the population's worship, there has been none. That
is, the belief in objective morality came from religion, not from
atheistic objectivists like yourself. What it would seem to get at is
that you yourself don't approve in any sense of murder and rape, but can't
explain why. I have the same problem (heck, perhaps I'm projecting, but
I'm Allowed) because I was raised Protestant but left the church out of
disbelief. To simply say that murder is wrong because it infringes on the
rights of others is weak, and not an argument of morality. Morals are
judgements, ones that come from someone else but you share them, which
need no justification. Homosexuality between consenting adults, for
example, hasn't infringed on anyone's rights for a long time, but it is
considered to be immoral by many. My morals, since they lack Gurk's
church background, tend to go along the lines of another major system of
justice, the American Legal system. Along its general lines, that's all.
Saying something is illegal according to a 200 year legacy is easier than
figuring out how a crime harms my basic political priciples.
> >Jim, using force against rapists and murderers IS enforcing values at
> >the point of a gun (or billy club, or whatever). Just what do you
> >think values are, anyway? They are the privileging of one thing over
> >another, the defining of one act as better than another, a hierarchy.
> >If you put a murderer in prison or in the zap-chair, you have labelled
> >his actions as being low enough on the hierarchy that you are
> >justified in what you are doing.
>
> There's no question that the action taken upon a murderer or rapist
> would fall within the classification of "value," even to me. Such a
> discussion would involve considering and weighing the benefits and
> hazards of retribution and retaliation, etc.
Merely a "choice" at best.
> But the original question
> was why murder and rape are wrong. I think the answer to THAT can be
> discovered without the appeal to "values", but rather just on the basis
> of the nature of being human.
Humanity is questionable. In wartime, we fight best when we are convinced
that the enemy is inhuman. Worked with the AmerInd genocide, and it
worked in the Persian Gulf. Of course, armies are directed by sovereign
nations, nowadays, to which morals are really irrelevant. There is human
tradition in the legacy of law (Talmud, etc.) which directs that murder
has pretty much always been illegal, and rape has always been punished,
pretty consistantly. But Laws can only reflect values, morality, and
humanity. Laws exist only under organization of humans, something which,
I think, would conflict with Rousseau's state of nature, or your own State
of being Human.
> >You're circling round yourself, Jim. Ever read Rousseau? (Maybe
> >not.)
>
> Nope, but I've heard of him.
Shit, even I've read Rousseau. I though he was full of it, but that was
the point of the class, to place his writing in historical context. He's
interesting reading, but naturally you'll get to a point where his
"obviously" will not be so obvious, etc.
> >Under his state of absolute freedom, the so-called State of Nature,
> >every man can do what he pleases. It is anarchy. As long as human
> >beings are finite creatures, there is no such thing as perfect
> >freedom. You have simply defined freedom as being a limited freedom,
> >the old fist-nose argument. Freedom in itself is not limited to EACH
> >individual, not in the sense that it cannot violate others' freedom,
> >anyhow. Freedom is the ability to act without restraint.
>
> I disagree. Freedom, in a _political_ context, which is the context
> here, means that if one person has it, every other person must have it,
> as well.
In the State of Nature, that is, in Anarachy, there is no political
context; it simply cannot exist. So clearly that is not what Gurk was
talking about.
> Otherwise, it's something other than freedom; it's
> "existence by might" or something like that. In a physical sense, you
> could say that a man stranded on an island is "free to do what he
> wishes." But he would not "have freedom" in the way we mean it when we
> discuss social interaction.
He would not have the freedom to interact with that which you posit does
not exist, that is, anything to interact socially with. If he gains a
multiple personality disorder (an interpretation of a kind of mental
dysfuction, one not shared by all psychologists), he can, within the
limits of his mental capacity, interact with his personalities.
> >:Uh-huh. The set of people who proselytize is zero, right?
> >
> >Proselytizing is not persuasion.
>
> I'm aware of that...it's the attempt to convert, basically. So, it the
> set of people who've tried to do THAT, zero?
The set of people persuaded by words, a "religionist" would argue, is
null.
> >The Great Commission says to go into all the world and preach the
> >Gospel. That is not "convert people" or "persuade people." Jesus
> >Himself said that no man could come to Him except that the Father
> >called that man to himself. No one was ever persuaded or argued into
> >Christian belief. They were called by God, and they accepted.
>
> Says you. But the fact is that many, many people have been convinced
> into religious belief by the words of other men. Obviously, I would
> say that they ALL have!
Says you. I would agree, but I have not, in my memory or experience, been
convincingly "called by God" or anysuch thing. Gurk has been, and we are
none to question his interpretation of the event. If your objectivism
demands that God Does Not Exist, I can't help you, Andy can't help you, I
imagine that God won't help you.
> >There are relatively few philosophies which outright deny the concept
> >of identity. Sure, some of them have come into vogue of late, but
> >Rand's "A is A" is merely a slick restatement of the basic idea of
> >identity, and it is by no means representative of a systematic method
> >to epistemology.
>
> On its own, of course not. What axiom possibly could be? It's the
> derivations which represent a "systematic method to epistemology."
It has no derivations. Everything you could possibly "derive" is reduced
to that identity premise. And, naturally, the premise is ridiculous in
the context you demand it be used.
> >: I've been this way
> >: all of my life; and I've always thought I had a right to live, the
> >: opinions of some religionists notwithstanding.
> >
> >Jim, your slip is showing. Insulting the people with whom you discuss
> >by the unsupported suggestion that we think you don't have a "right to
> >live" is really rather unproductive. Is it your intention to
> >converse, or is it to mock?
>
> I meant to neither insult nor mock; I just meant to describe. I'm
> sorry if it struck a nerve within you, but that's how I see it.
Rights are granted to one, either by one's religion, one's nation, one's
status (economic, political, etc.) and such. If you were denied such a
right, really, you'd be dead, because someone would take advantage of
their right to kill the likes of you (without the right to live). Your
petty description is merely a statement of your own insecurity about those
you see as religionists, not any real statement about religion or your
lack thereof. I'd like to see you back up your comment, too, with
support, rather than fascetious nonsense.
> >If it is the former, let's get down to it.
>
> Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
> another person that which he has earned?
Depends on the morality system. I can't speak of Gurk's morality, but the
answer, despite the way you question, may well be yes. If the group of
people is the State, and the fellow "earned" his property by murdering the
previous own, yes. If the earning violates someone else's rights, they
state can, may, and will take earned wealth away. Your question
ambiguously implies that a bunch of bullies take away a guy's wife or
some such, but my natural criticism prevents me from automatically
agreeing without hypothetical exploration. And such exploration produces
all kinds of cases, some moral, some immoral, just as Gurk's will, I
think, and yours will, had you given the question much thought.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jim Klein a stately USENET-post decree:
: I wouldn't want to do that! So I should have thrown in some
: qualifiers: The vast majority of religionists, throughout all of human
: history, have sought political control, of one form or another, over
: others. Is that sufficiently clear?
I suppose it's clear, but I still think it's wrong. Assuming for a moment
that a "religionist" is anyone who follows a religion with some moderate
amount of devotion, I think it is quite clear in history that the great
majority of those people were not seeking some sort of political control
through their religion. Indeed, I think those masses were mostly in it
for the opiate. (Though I don't use the concept as Marx did.)
: I wasn't referring to egoists in particular; the "political action"
: part was meant to be the emphasis. It's just the egoist who usually
: take the most offense! I'm well aware that there are many exceptions;
: Quakers come immediately to mind. I take you at your word that you're
: an exception too, though I wonder what your opinion of taxation is.
: Still, numerically, it's no match.
Numerically? Where are the numbers? You're basically arguing that every
religion is a political movement in its essence and in its following, and
you haven't given one jot or tittle of support for this brash assertion.
: >So, by your disagreement, you're saying that you know that murder and
: >rape are wrong, and you know this WITHOUT the use of ANY values of any
: >sort?
: >
: >Pardon me whilst I disbelieve, because, if you do genuinely believe
: >this, you're either insane or self-deluded to a degree that I have
: >never yet seen in a sane man.
: Then you must not be familiar with Ted Kennedy! Offhand, I'd say that
: the "immorality" of murder and rape is prior to the concept of "value".
: This would be because value has no meaning except in a context of
: choice, and that context of choice can't exist with the imposition of
: force. It's a tough call, since we don't really have a word for those
: values which are _necessary_ for the existence of what I call "values",
: which I reserve for what an individual chooses to value with his
: rationality.
Morality, in the general sense, is any idea which says that one ought to
do one thing and not another. That morality may be based on efficiency or
some other bland concept, but the very idea of morality is simply a formal
mental restructuring and refocusing of the idea of value. A value is that
which privileges one thing over another. A moral is a value which
privileges one action over another.
Value does have meaning even outside a context of human choice, because it
is not merely a human construct. If you and I were to create any army of
robots who had no choice but to do that which we ordered them, their
actions still reflect value, even though it is not their own and even
though they have no choice in the matter. You may argue that it is the
values of their creator which determine the worth of their actions, and so
would I, because I believe in God, though I don't think we're robots. Any
value in its true sense still stems from Him, however.
: >Jim, using force against rapists and murderers IS enforcing values at
: >the point of a gun (or billy club, or whatever). Just what do you
: >think values are, anyway? They are the privileging of one thing over
: >another, the defining of one act as better than another, a hierarchy.
: >If you put a murderer in prison or in the zap-chair, you have labelled
: >his actions as being low enough on the hierarchy that you are
: >justified in what you are doing.
: There's no question that the action taken upon a murderer or rapist
: would fall within the classification of "value," even to me. Such a
: discussion would involve considering and weighing the benefits and
: hazards of retribution and retaliation, etc. But the original question
: was why murder and rape are wrong. I think the answer to THAT can be
: discovered without the appeal to "values", but rather just on the basis
: of the nature of being human.
You're playing word games with yourself again. To be human is to have
values. You claim to discover the right and wrong of murder and rape by
examining human nature. Did you not discover that it is human nature to
have values?
: >: And don't bother with the "what about the freedom to murder" line.
: >: Freedom has no meaning unless it applies to EACH individual; the
: >: existence of a desire to murder removes the whole context, and hence
: >: meaning, of freedom.
: >
: >You're circling round yourself, Jim. Ever read Rousseau? (Maybe
: >not.)
: Nope, but I've heard of him.
Well, read him. He argued far more eloquently and thoroughly, exploring
the true ramifications of the concepts, some of the things you're stating
here, though I think he ultimately failed.
: >Under his state of absolute freedom, the so-called State of Nature,
: >every man can do what he pleases. It is anarchy. As long as human
: >beings are finite creatures, there is no such thing as perfect
: >freedom. You have simply defined freedom as being a limited freedom,
: >the old fist-nose argument. Freedom in itself is not limited to EACH
: >individual, not in the sense that it cannot violate others' freedom,
: >anyhow. Freedom is the ability to act without restraint.
: I disagree. Freedom, in a _political_ context, which is the context
: here, means that if one person has it, every other person must have it,
: as well.
Who said we were necessarily discussing freedom in a political context?
: Otherwise, it's something other than freedom; it's
: "existence by might" or something like that. In a physical sense, you
: could say that a man stranded on an island is "free to do what he
: wishes." But he would not "have freedom" in the way we mean it when we
: discuss social interaction.
Who's "we?" "Freedom" in its common usage is the ability to do what one
pleases, though we infer some limitations from that, such as that
limitations of being bipedal and without wings. Freedom in the political
context is not necessarily your limited anarchy idea of freedom, that we
have the freedom to do what we wish so long as we don't limit others'
freedom. ("An it harm none, do what thou wilt." Holy Wicca, Batman!)
Political freedom is the freedom to act politically according to one's
wishes. Whether that freedom belongs to everyone or not is not inherent
in the idea. It is possible for the King to be politically free and the
subjects to be slaves.
: >:>For another thing, any devout Christian does not go about attempting
: >:>to persuade people to his viewpoint (as if any human could persaude
: >:>someone to belief in God!
: >
: >:Uh-huh. The set of people who proselytize is zero, right?
: >
: >Proselytizing is not persuasion.
: I'm aware of that...it's the attempt to convert, basically. So, it the
: set of people who've tried to do THAT, zero?
-Trying- is different from -succeeding-. Attempting to convert is not
converting. (Whatever happened to "A == A"?) I said, "as if any human
could persuade someone to belief in God!" Note the use of the common
Modern English word "could" there. Note how "could" is not the same as
"has tried to."
: >Ever read the Book of Acts? (Oh, I forgot. You don't read, because
: >it would corrupt your pure thoughts. A pity, since you're commenting
: >on things you haven't read.)
: That's an untrue charge. I've made no comments on anything I haven't
: read; I've only commented on what I've seen, or been aware of. Name
: one comment on something I've made, that I haven't read.
You have commented on Christianity and religion numerous times, yet you
claim that you choose not to read so much as the ingredients in Campbell's
Soup, because you believe that such reading will render your comments
unable to "stand on their own." No man stands on his own! You are
socialized, my friend, and, like it or not, the very fact that you are
writing in English indicates that your comments cannot stand on their own.
In any event, comments on the essence of a religion are really quite
empty without even having studied that religion's written doctrine.
: >The Great Commission says to go into all the world and preach the
: >Gospel. That is not "convert people" or "persuade people." Jesus
: >Himself said that no man could come to Him except that the Father
: >called that man to himself. No one was ever persuaded or argued into
: >Christian belief. They were called by God, and they accepted.
: Says you. But the fact is that many, many people have been convinced
: into religious belief by the words of other men. Obviously, I would
: say that they ALL have!
Says you. Would you like to circle 'round again?
: >There are relatively few philosophies which outright deny the concept
: >of identity. Sure, some of them have come into vogue of late, but
: >Rand's "A is A" is merely a slick restatement of the basic idea of
: >identity, and it is by no means representative of a systematic method
: >to epistemology.
: On its own, of course not. What axiom possibly could be? It's the
: derivations which represent a "systematic method to epistemology."
Your derivations still are not truly derived from "A is A." You bring
something else to it entirely, such as, in the Objectivist case, an a
priori denial of spiritual reality. You cannot derive Objectivism from
"A is A." You can only derive the concept of identity.
: >: I've been this way
: >: all of my life; and I've always thought I had a right to live, the
: >: opinions of some religionists notwithstanding.
: >
: >Jim, your slip is showing. Insulting the people with whom you discuss
: >by the unsupported suggestion that we think you don't have a "right to
: >live" is really rather unproductive. Is it your intention to
: >converse, or is it to mock?
: I meant to neither insult nor mock; I just meant to describe. I'm
: sorry if it struck a nerve within you, but that's how I see it.
It hasn't struck a nerve. My nerves are seldom struck, least of all by
the disembodied glowing letters in a USENET post. No, it is merely
insult, because, as I said, you did not support your comment. Which
"religionists?" Who thinks that you do not have a right to live? Is it
me? Is it that strawman with the cross 'round his neck that you seem to
be carrying about in your pocket?
: >If it is the former, let's get down to it.
: Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
: another person that which he has earned?
Yes and no. Define "that which he has earned" for me. Also tell me if
you think that one can waive the right to certain rights by his own
violation of others'.
--Gurk
--
_____________________________________________________gu...@ncsu.edu
"EVERY MORNING, I PLACE FIFTEEN CENTS ON TOP OF MY SKULL AND HAMMER
IT INTO MY HEAD WITH A BOX OF VERY OLD MARSHMALLOW PEEPS. I AM NOW
LEGALLY INSANE." --Didymos, Icon and Proverbial Prophet of Smerp
Louis Nick III
A case in point, if I may. See, if you could understand the sort of
making of Greenspan, what his motives are, etc. and take what he says in
the context that creates which is literally an approximation of
Greenspan's context, you can tell what he meant by saying what he did. Or
make a case that you can, at least. His actual thinking is irrelevant
compared to his actions and contextually parsed speech.
I could easily go farther as to say that his thought could have nothing to
do with Economics, because his senses fool him in to thinking that he
helps the Care Bears whenever he engages in action which we interpret as
raising interest rates, etc., but there's no evidence, nor can we gather
any, to support this sort of hypothesis.
--
"I've pretty much given up the hopes for adulation from the USENET masses
at this point, although I must admit I *am* satisfied with the quality and
quantity of the groupies so far." -"Jesse Garon" <gri...@primenet.com>
Louis Nick III
During your lifetime, your perception of reality changes.
This is not distinguishable from actual change in reality.
Thus, reality may change, you'd never be able to tell for sure whether it
was reality changing and not just you, or vice versa.
--
"I've pretty much given up the hopes for adulation from the USENET masses
at this point, although I must admit I *am* satisfied with the quality and
quantity of the groupies so far." -"Jesse Garon" <gri...@primenet.com>
Michael Straight
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> Does reality change?
Maybe.
> If so, HOW?
Who knows. That's the whole problem.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Michael Straight
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Louis Nick III wrote:
> On 15 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> > Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >
> > >You can't calibrate a sensor against what it was intend to sense
> > >unless you know what you're looking at already. And since you can
> > >only detect "reality" through sensors and faith, I guess you calibrate
> > >your eyes based on faith that what they see is *there*.
> >
> > Nope---all you really need to do is accept (on faith, if you wish) that
> > SOEMTHING is there. Then, the evolution of the senses serves as the
> > support that what they reflect is reality---again, what else would they
> > relfect? But no, that doesn't establish that they're perfectly
> > calibrated.
>
> Your evolution argument is based on the assumption, the faith (as I wish),
> that reality is assertive in molding sensors.
Congratulations. You have just, in one sentence, made an argument that
C.S. Lewis tried unsuccessfully for years to formulate. Probably because
he didn't have the benefit of postmodernist thinking to work with.
Michael Straight exaggerates somewhat.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Louis Nick III
> >ambitious and power-hungry. The fact that these people are found
> >running religions is purely coincidental, and thay would be doing the
> >same if they ran PACs, Parties, Companies, or Committees.
>
> for OTHERS, as well.
Look, even if you see PACs and Parties to be immoral, you still can't draw
any causal relation between "being in a religion" and "wanting to controls
lives other than your own."
> >Perhaps, indeed, their religion had something to do with "making them
> >that way," but people who were similarly influenced might not turn out
> >so power hungry.
>
> In a causeless universe, I suppose so!
Of all the people in power, how many follow a religion? Of the number of
people in a religion, how many have or seek power? Probably about half on
the first, and surely a small percentage on the second. So religion can't
be a causal factor in the power-hunger that you attribute towards
"religionists." People in power demand that people in the population
live according to the prinicples of law, for one, which may or may not
reflect their personal religious principles. The only causal factor that
makes people want to decide for others, then, is power-hunger, some desire
that posesses a numbe of people, apparently. regardless of their religion.
It fact, it seems more to be a function of their culture.
> >Throughout human history, it was major religions groups and movements
> >that were credited with controlling the lives of people. The fact
> >remains that whoever has a more popular grasp on truth will hold the
> >key to moving the populace. And since history books only talk about
> >religions groups and heretics before about 1600...
>
> The thing upon which they have "a more popular grasp" isn't the truth,
> necessarily. But then, maybe you'd say it is, by definition.
You may not think for me either. It could be the same thing, as far as we
or this argument is concerned. A more popular grasp of truth is sold as
truth, to the public that is incapable of exploring the issue, there is no
apparent difference. I don't subscribe to the "majority holds the truth"
theory of truth.
> >There is not objective human morality, and since God has been reduced
> >to a smaller portion of the population's worship, there has been none.
>
> I happen to agree, but think it's fairly irrelevant, unless history is
> the subject. And clearly, I wouldn't be one to choose history to be
> the subject!
I would add to that that the cultural rights and beliefs that you apply to
the sorts of ethical situations, where a crime is or isn't commited, a
moral is or isn't broken, are arbitrary, and not conducive to anything
beyond a cultural morality, not a new objective reailty you seem to be
claiming exists.
> >That is, the belief in objective morality came from religion, not from
> >atheistic objectivists like yourself. What it would seem to get at is
> >that you yourself don't approve in any sense of murder and rape, but
> >can't explain why. I have the same problem (heck, perhaps I'm
> >projecting, but I'm Allowed) because I was raised Protestant but left
> >the church out of disbelief. To simply say that murder is wrong
> >because it infringes on the rights of others is weak, and not an
> >argument of morality.
>
> As I've also said, "morality" is a very tough word to pin down, and so
> it doesn't do much for getting anywhere, IMO. I don't think "infringes
> on the rights of others" is as weak as you do, since I think that
> "rights" can be objectively derived, basically from the "right to
> live."
If rights are objectively derived (I disagree strongly), and morals can be
derived from rights strongly (I say only weakly) then morals are
objective, and we just agreed that they are not.
> I guess you could say that that's just an axiom to me, but I'd
> say it's a little more, in that if it's not accepted that a person, by
> being born, should be able to live, then all of this is moot anyway.
I could say it's cultural, because had you been born in a culture that had
castes, or slaves, or such, then you would feel differently as "rights"
are applied to different castes or the slave race differently (that is,
certain castes or the slave race would have lesser value than the other
castes or races). If you were lucky to be one of the worthwhile races or
castes, you'd be a liberal who could never understand the plight of the
lesser, and if you were one of the lesser-valued castes or race, nobody
would value your ideas anyway. You're just one citizen, a partial
intellectual, in a culture that does not value its intellectuals as they
do in Europe, for example. Why is it that you're right and the rest of us
live a lie?
> >Morals are judgements, ones that come from someone else but you share
> >them, which need no justification. Homosexuality between consenting
> >adults, for example, hasn't infringed on anyone's rights for a long
> >time, but it is considered to be immoral by many. My morals, since
> >they lack Gurk's church background, tend to go along the lines of
> >another major system of justice, the American Legal system. Along its
> >general lines, that's all.
> >Saying something is illegal according to a 200 year legacy is easier
> >than figuring out how a crime harms my basic political priciples.
>
> Well, I think a physical derivation would be even easier than that!
> We're going to have to let "morals" go, since as you point out with the
> homosexual example, it just doesn't serve as a communicative word.
Morality is not objective, therefore is occasionally occurs that people
find homosexuality immoral. I don't, and you'd have to be DJK (see
Net.Legends FAQ) to disagree. It is a word that has no objective meaning,
therefore *you* cannot deal with it. It suits me just fine.
> >Says you. I would agree, but I have not, in my memory or experience,
> >been convincingly "called by God" or anysuch thing. Gurk has been,
> >and we are none to question his interpretation of the event. If your
> >objectivism demands that God Does Not Exist, I can't help you, Andy
> >can't help you, I imagine that God won't help you.
>
> Why? Do you mean that He wouldn't help nice atheists, but WOULD help
> murderous religionists? Some God, if so.
God helps those who believe God is helping them. How is God going to help
you if you don't believe him? Any assistance He gave would be interpreted
by yoiu as coming from something else. We all get the same treatment,
some call it fortune and luck, others call it "God on our side." The two
groups described would merely see the same thing differently, byt you
didn't account for that, did you?
> >Rights are granted to one, either by one's religion, one's nation,
> >one's status (economic, political, etc.) and such.
>
> Well, there's our disagreement about rights. Apparently, you think
> that if the Constitution were amended to deny folks over 6 feet tall
> the right to live, that they would no longer have the right to live. I
> think they would.
I think that the Constitution was written by human beings, who would never
get so far as to document what they felt was a right, one that violated
another basic right. At any rate, such a rule would lead to a large
Marxist revolt, despite the inevitable propaganda against people above 6'.
But the rights we are granted in the constitution are the only ones that
out sovereign country will defend and maintain, as required by its own
rules. The rest of the law is temporary. Rights, as interpreted by
courts and judges, cannot be violated. If a right is interpreted against
you, your appeal failed (as many do) and you follow the ruling of the
previous court.
Remember, rights can be waived.
> >> >If it is the former, let's get down to it.
> >> Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
> >> another person that which he has earned?
> >Depends on the morality system. I can't speak of Gurk's morality, but
> >the answer, despite the way you question, may well be yes. If the
> >group of people is the State, and the fellow "earned" his property by
> >murdering the previous own,
> That's not earning.
So you say.
> >yes. If the earning violates someone else's rights,
> Then it's not earning.
Not in our culture. But in a manner of speaking it is. You think that by
working in the military as a career officer might not violate anyone
else's rights, even during wartime? So should we deny pay to soldiers
because they kill people for our country? Of course not. We pay them to
serve a great goal that occassionally involves killing people. Or perhaps
you see war as ...immoral?
> >they state can, may, and will take earned wealth away. Your question
> >ambiguously implies that a bunch of bullies take away a guy's wife or
> >some such, but my natural criticism prevents me from automatically
> >agreeing without hypothetical exploration. And such exploration
> >produces all kinds of cases, some moral, some immoral, just as Gurk's
> >will, I think, and yours will, had you given the question much
> >thought.
>
> I have given it thought, and the answer lies in what "earning" means.
> It doesn't mean "taking"; it doesn't mean "looting"; technically, it
> doesn't even mean "being given to" or "borrowing", but these last may
> be pursuant to a position one has "earned".
Look, I can't look into your mind and see what you want a particular word
means. I can guess what you think it means by how you use it, that is
(literally) the context of the usage, but "earning" has a host of
meanings, and if you wanted to distinguish it from all sorts of things
described immediately above, you should have said so. Earning means doing
work to receive a reward. If I plan extensively a theft, and have to heft
myself up a building to get the crown jewels, that's earning. You should
at least state that I have a lawful right to the reward, instead of
assuming it.
What about a criminal getting robbed of his dirty money? Why is that
robbery illegal? Whose rights are being violated?
Michael Straight
On 16 Jun 1997, Louis Nick III wrote:
> Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
> >Does reality change?
> >If so, HOW?
>
> During your lifetime, your perception of reality changes.
>
> This is not distinguishable from actual change in reality.
>
> Thus, reality may change, you'd never be able to tell for sure whether it
> was reality changing and not just you, or vice versa.
"If the world keeps getting weirder and weirder, by the time I'm 65
I won't know if I'm senile or not." -- my wife
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
L. Shelton Bumgarner
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window like you
>> just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells you something that
>> is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
>Okay, I can't speak for the inner voice of God(TM), but Einstein was not
>the image we have and hold for him these days. He was religious, so much
>so that he sacrificed his science at times.
To me, this proves nothing. I learned long ago that eggheads can be
pretty clueless sometimes.
lee
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
[Please remove "REMOVETHIS" from my email to respond to my posts]
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
>: Does reality change?
>In what sense? From God's perspective, because He sees the whole timeline
>at once, His own Present, nothing can change. Now, if we're dealing with
>the human perspective within linear time, yes, reality changes constantly,
>at least, the material portion of it. The immaterial in the greater sense
>is always essentially the same.
I seem to recall a few classes in my dull-as-hell pholosphy class had
to deal with the problems with a god that knew everything.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
>: P.S. And yes, when we die, a LOT of people are going to get a baton to the
>: back of the head that they never saw coming. Either the Christians will come
>: to grips with nothingness (which is a contradiction) or a lot of very smug
>: Atheists will find their nuts roasting in a subjective, metaphysical, unproven
>: lava pit. There are people who will not believe in Hell until they smell
>: their own burning flesh. One may argue, that's what Hell is FOR. To convince
>: people the only way they CAN be convinced.
I once mused maybe people experience after death what they believed in
during life. (That doesn't fit into my worldview because that would
mean accepting there is actually a magical mystery aspect to human
experience, something I find painfully hard to believe.
>The Truth is that the Loving and Just God who created us wants to have a
>relationship with us, His creation, and that that relationship engenders
>in us a natural desire and tendency to follow His morality.
Christianity seems somewhat oblvious to the fact that there are many
other cultures out there that have developed without the aid of "God."
Alla or Jehova maybe, but not God. What happens to them?
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
>: It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window
>: like you just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells
>: you something that is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
>First, I do not believe that reason is above all.
Woah momma! (At the center of my being -- "Reason above all."
> As to the voice of God,
>well, He has never told me anything which seemed antithetical to my mind,
>except where I was holding an untrue belief. The way it usually works
>(though this is difficult to describe in concrete terms) is that He'll
>bring my attention to a view or action in my head and it'll appear quite
>plainly to be somewhat ridiculous or wrong. I'll investigate it further,
>often reading stuff in the Bible or by the ancients or by friends whom I
>respect, and I'll see -how- it is ridiculous or wrong.
Still, if you eliminate faith nothing that you've just described can't
be explained. God doesn't tell you "anything which seemed antithetical
to your mind" because YOU were producing what "he" was telling.
lee
remember Gruk, I'm just discussing stuff. I'm not trying to piss you
off.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did Louis Nick III a stately USENET-post decree:
>: > One thing I've found in common between Christians and Objectivists. They are
>: > both very quick to find excuses NOT to talk to each other.
>: Both have fundamental beliefs that they may not question and remain
>: Christian or Objectivist.
>Oh, I can question my beliefs. I do all the time, in fact. Real
>Christians -do- ask why. (Which happens to be the title of a book,
>incidentally.) The questioning leads to strengthening, revision,
>and deeper understanding.
The difference between religious people and non-religious people is a
matter of faith. I really don't care what someone belives as long as
it doesn't hurt me or anyone else that doesn't want to be hurt. Just
don't judge me or try to convert me is all I ask.
lee
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.970615...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Members of religions run the spectrum, like all sets of humans, of the
>ambitious and power-hungry. The fact that these people are found
>running religions is purely coincidental, and thay would be doing the
>same if they ran PACs, Parties, Companies, or Committees.
Sure---most of those agree with the idea of SOME deciding what's best
for OTHERS, as well.
>Perhaps, indeed, their religion had something to do with "making them
>that way," but people who were similarly influenced might not turn out
>so power hungry.
In a causeless universe, I suppose so!
>Throughout human history, it was major religions groups and movements
>that were credited with controlling the lives of people. The fact
>remains that whoever has a more popular grasp on truth will hold the
>key to moving the populace. And since history books only talk about
>religions groups and heretics before about 1600...
The thing upon which they have "a more popular grasp" isn't the truth,
necessarily. But then, maybe you'd say it is, by definition.
>> I wasn't referring to egoists in particular; the "political action"
>> part was meant to be the emphasis. It's just the egoist who usually
>> take the most offense! I'm well aware that there are many
>> exceptions; Quakers come immediately to mind. I take you at your
>> word that you're an exception too, though I wonder what your opinion
>> of taxation is. Still, numerically, it's no match.
>
>Your quoting removed any semblance of context for this statement.
>Numerically, it's no match for what?
I sure did, didn't I? I meant that the number of religionists who seek
to control others, was way higher than those who don't. But, as I've
already explained, I was wrong. My comment might fairly apply to
religious leaders throughout history, or even most adherents in
democracies, but NOT to most adherents overall, throughout history.
>There is not objective human morality, and since God has been reduced
>to a smaller portion of the population's worship, there has been none.
I happen to agree, but think it's fairly irrelevant, unless history is
the subject. And clearly, I wouldn't be one to choose history to be
the subject!
>That is, the belief in objective morality came from religion, not from
>atheistic objectivists like yourself. What it would seem to get at is
>that you yourself don't approve in any sense of murder and rape, but
>can't explain why. I have the same problem (heck, perhaps I'm
>projecting, but I'm Allowed) because I was raised Protestant but left
>the church out of disbelief. To simply say that murder is wrong
>because it infringes on the rights of others is weak, and not an
>argument of morality.
As I've also said, "morality" is a very tough word to pin down, and so
it doesn't do much for getting anywhere, IMO. I don't think "infringes
on the rights of others" is as weak as you do, since I think that
"rights" can be objectively derived, basically from the "right to
live." I guess you could say that that's just an axiom to me, but I'd
say it's a little more, in that if it's not accepted that a person, by
being born, should be able to live, then all of this is moot anyway.
>Morals are judgements, ones that come from someone else but you share
>them, which need no justification. Homosexuality between consenting
>adults, for example, hasn't infringed on anyone's rights for a long
>time, but it is considered to be immoral by many. My morals, since
>they lack Gurk's church background, tend to go along the lines of
>another major system of justice, the American Legal system. Along its
>general lines, that's all.
>Saying something is illegal according to a 200 year legacy is easier
>than figuring out how a crime harms my basic political priciples.
Well, I think a physical derivation would be even easier than that!
We're going to have to let "morals" go, since as you point out with the
homosexual example, it just doesn't serve as a communicative word.
>Says you. I would agree, but I have not, in my memory or experience,
>been convincingly "called by God" or anysuch thing. Gurk has been,
>and we are none to question his interpretation of the event. If your
>objectivism demands that God Does Not Exist, I can't help you, Andy
>can't help you, I imagine that God won't help you.
Why? Do you mean that He wouldn't help nice atheists, but WOULD help
murderous religionists? Some God, if so.
>Rights are granted to one, either by one's religion, one's nation,
>one's status (economic, political, etc.) and such.
Well, there's our disagreement about rights. Apparently, you think
that if the Constitution were amended to deny folks over 6 feet tall
the right to live, that they would no longer have the right to live. I
think they would.
>> >If it is the former, let's get down to it.
>>
>> Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
>> another person that which he has earned?
>
>Depends on the morality system. I can't speak of Gurk's morality, but
>the answer, despite the way you question, may well be yes. If the
>group of people is the State, and the fellow "earned" his property by
>murdering the previous own,
That's not earning.
>yes. If the earning violates someone else's rights,
Then it's not earning.
>they state can, may, and will take earned wealth away. Your question
>ambiguously implies that a bunch of bullies take away a guy's wife or
>some such, but my natural criticism prevents me from automatically
>agreeing without hypothetical exploration. And such exploration
>produces all kinds of cases, some moral, some immoral, just as Gurk's
>will, I think, and yours will, had you given the question much
>thought.
I have given it thought, and the answer lies in what "earning" means.
It doesn't mean "taking"; it doesn't mean "looting"; technically, it
doesn't even mean "being given to" or "borrowing", but these last may
be pursuant to a position one has "earned".
jk
Kevin P. Neal
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> During your lifetime, your perception of reality changes.
>>
>> This is not distinguishable from actual change in reality.
>>
>> Thus, reality may change, you'd never be able to tell for sure whether it
>> was reality changing and not just you, or vice versa.
>"If the world keeps getting weirder and weirder, by the time I'm 65
> I won't know if I'm senile or not." -- my wife
When I was 17, I knew everything.
Those were the days.
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
E.Holmes
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Louis Nick III wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/On 18 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
/> Well, there's our disagreement about rights. Apparently, you think
/> that if the Constitution were amended to deny folks over 6 feet tall
/> the right to live, that they would no longer have the right to live. I
/> think they would.
/
/I think that the Constitution was written by human beings, who would never
/get so far as to document what they felt was a right, one that violated
/another basic right. At any rate, such a rule would lead to a large
/Marxist revolt, despite the inevitable propaganda against people above 6'.
/But the rights we are granted in the constitution are the only ones that
/out sovereign country will defend and maintain, as required by its own
/rules. The rest of the law is temporary. Rights, as interpreted by
/courts and judges, cannot be violated. If a right is interpreted against
/you, your appeal failed (as many do) and you follow the ruling of the
/previous court.
/
/Remember, rights can be waived.
Indeed. And rights can be forfeited by criminal activity.
Indicating that rights are a function of law rather than nature.
Which reminds of something. Citizenship is not itself a right,
but a priviledge. This is the reason that conviction of a felony
results in permanent loss of the priviledge of voting. (This can
be reversed by judicial waiver following a request for review and
substantial testimony as to rehabilitation, but is rarely sought.)
E.Holmes
--
"Usenet was founded by people who took everything everyone
else doesn't care about too seriously." --- Lee Bumgarner
Jim Klein
In <5o3ltu$8...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk"
Damick) writes:
>I suppose it's clear, but I still think it's wrong. Assuming for a
>moment that a "religionist" is anyone who follows a religion with some
>moderate amount of devotion, I think it is quite clear in history that
>the great majority of those people were not seeking some sort of
>political control through their religion. Indeed, I think those
>masses were mostly in it for the opiate. (Though I don't use the
>concept as Marx did.)
Basically, I think you're right, and sit partially corrected. Through
history, most people have probably had no political control, nor sought
any. With democracies, however, every vote is the taking of a
position, and that position inevitably involves controlling other
people. I think that *most* religionists, *to the degree they consider
it*, see virtue in controlling the behavior of others.
>: I wasn't referring to egoists in particular; the "political action"
>: part was meant to be the emphasis. It's just the egoist who usually
>: take the most offense! I'm well aware that there are many
>: exceptions; Quakers come immediately to mind. I take you at your
>: word that you're an exception too, though I wonder what your opinion
>: of taxation is. Still, numerically, it's no match.
>
>Numerically? Where are the numbers? You're basically arguing that
>every religion is a political movement in its essence and in its
>following, and you haven't given one jot or tittle of support for this
>brash assertion.
Well, it'd be a bit tough to convince you, since you apparently believe
that the source of religion is God. I think it's manifest that the
source of religion is men, and that the men who are most closely
involved in its creation and propagation, do indeed seek political
action. The mainstream Catholic, Jewish and Islamic religions come to
mind, though I grant that this charge doesn't necessarily hold with the
overwhelming majority of adherents.
>Morality, in the general sense, is any idea which says that one ought
>to do one thing and not another. That morality may be based on
>efficiency or some other bland concept, but the very idea of morality
>is simply a formal mental restructuring and refocusing of the idea of
>value. A value is that which privileges one thing over another. A
>moral is a value which privileges one action over another.
That leaves a murderer as "moral", which I concede isn't crazy (given
your definition), but I think the word ought to be used as something
other than just synonymous with "value of an action". Really, I think
the word shouldn't be used at all, since it ALWAYS brings in more
baggage (or not enough, as here) than intended. It's too tough to pin
down; therefore it's not a great communicative word.
>Value does have meaning even outside a context of human choice,
>because it is not merely a human construct. If you and I were to
>create any army of robots who had no choice but to do that which we
>ordered them, their actions still reflect value, even though it is not
>their own and even though they have no choice in the matter. You may
>argue that it is the values of their creator which determine the worth
>of their actions, and so would I, because I believe in God, though I
>don't think we're robots. Any value in its true sense still stems
>from Him, however.
There's no such thing as "having value"; you can only "have value TO
someone" (or FOR someone). Hence, though the robots actions reflect
value to their creators, the actions don't reflect value to the robots,
nor can they be said to "have value, period". I can see how you'd
believe that "any value...stems from Him," but do you believe that He
Himself has values? Does God have free will?
>You're playing word games with yourself again. To be human is to have
>values.
On this we fully agree, and to "have values" only has meaning in a
context of choice. If one's every move were pre-determined, one could
have no values, since there'd to nothing to value anything relative to.
>You claim to discover the right and wrong of murder and rape by
>examining human nature. Did you not discover that it is human nature
>to have values?
Yes, indeed...and it's the fact that having values requires choice and
rationality which makes murder and rape wrong, since they don't allow
the brain to function with choices.
>Who said we were necessarily discussing freedom in a political
>context?
Sorry, I didn't mean to speak for you. But I don't discuss freedom in
any other context.
>Who's "we?" "Freedom" in its common usage is the ability to do what
>one pleases, though we infer some limitations from that, such as that
>limitations of being bipedal and without wings.
Yes. As I mentioned, that is one use of "freedom".
>Freedom in the political context is not necessarily your limited
>anarchy idea of freedom, that we have the freedom to do what we wish
>so long as we don't limit others' freedom. ("An it harm none, do what
>thou wilt." Holy Wicca, Batman!)
>Political freedom is the freedom to act politically according to one's
>wishes. Whether that freedom belongs to everyone or not is not
>inherent in the idea. It is possible for the King to be politically
>free and the subjects to be slaves.
He is "free" in the prior sense, but "freedom" does not accurately
describe the picture there, IMO.
>-Trying- is different from -succeeding-. Attempting to convert is not
>converting. (Whatever happened to "A == A"?)
You're entirely correct here, and I think it's a critical point.
NOBODY has control over what someone else thinks, in ANY situation.
>I said, "as if any human could persuade someone to belief in God!"
>Note the use of the common Modern English word "could" there. Note
>how "could" is not the same as "has tried to."
You go too far here. There still is such a thing as "persuasion", and
one person can "persuade" another. But still, it's the persuadee doing
the ultimate action, not the persuader.
>You have commented on Christianity and religion numerous times, yet
>you claim that you choose not to read so much as the ingredients in
>Campbell's Soup, because you believe that such reading will render
>your comments unable to "stand on their own."
I didn't say it would render them unable to stand on their own; I just
said that they should be able to stand on their own. This would apply
with or without reading. And I hardly said that I don't read *at all*;
I believe the comment was that I don't read very much. Obviously, I
at least read a fair number of Usenet posts.
>No man stands on his own!
Oh, wrong. EVERY man stands on his own. Let's see you stand, or
breathe or eat or think, for somebody else.
>You are socialized, my friend, and, like it or not, the very fact that
>you are writing in English indicates that your comments cannot stand
>on their own.
Of course I'm socialized, but that doesn't change the fact that I am a
single organism. I guess you mean that language exists because others
exist---that much is true. But that doesn't mean that it's the
"others" doing the action. ALL human action is individual, period.
That some of that individual action is done in concert with others'
individual action, doesn't affect the nature of the thing doing the
action. And that comment, for one, can stand on its own, regardless of
what anybody else has ever said. (But it couldn't be in an
intelligible language if nobody else had ever said *anything*.)
>In any event, comments on the essence of a religion are really quite
>empty without even having studied that religion's written doctrine.
But I haven't commented on the "essence" of any religion; I've only
commented on some of the manifestations of them. And with those, I'm
moderately familiar.
>: Says you. But the fact is that many, many people have been
>: convinced into religious belief by the words of other men.
>: Obviously, I would say that they ALL have!
>
>Says you. Would you like to circle 'round again?
I erred if I implied that it was the words of others which did the
actual action, for an individual. But just as there would be no
language save for other people, so the same applies to religion.
Obviously, you'd disagree. I guess you'd have to say that those books
aren't really books; they're something else. As I've said, I don't
think saying, or believing, that A isn't A is a crime. I just think
it's factually incorrect.
>Your derivations still are not truly derived from "A is A." You bring
>something else to it entirely, such as, in the Objectivist case, an a
>priori denial of spiritual reality.
I deny nothing a priori, except that A may be something other than A.
>You cannot derive Objectivism from "A is A." You can only derive the
>concept of identity.
I can derive consciousness from it, can't I?
>It hasn't struck a nerve. My nerves are seldom struck, least of all
>by the disembodied glowing letters in a USENET post. No, it is merely
>insult, because, as I said, you did not support your comment.
I'm trying to support that which I can support, retract that which is
wrong, and clarify anything about which I've been unclear.
>Which "religionists?"
The ones that affect political action.
>Who thinks that you do not have a right to live?
The ones who think that I don't have a right to the fruits of my labor,
or to engage in whatever action I deem advisable for myself.
>Is it me?
I really don't know. We've been spinning our wheels for quite some
time, as far as I can tell.
>Is it that strawman with the cross 'round his neck that you seem to
>be carrying about in your pocket?
This seems an odd charge, considering that I explicitly stated that my
own values most closely resemble those of devout Christians, in this
world.
>: >If it is the former, let's get down to it.
>
>: Fine. Is it moral for one group of people to use force to take from
>: another person that which he has earned?
>
>Yes and no. Define "that which he has earned" for me.
That which another person has voluntarily given to me, usually in
exchange for something that I voluntarily gave to, or did for, him.
>Also tell me if you think that one can waive the right to certain
>rights by his own violation of others'.
I don't know what made you ask this, but this is a VERY complicated
question, since it goes to the heart of what it is to be human.
Offhand, I've always been like most people, and would respond, "Yes, of
course." But recently, I've come to the realization that the question
isn't quite as simple as most would believe.
So the answer to your question is, "It's under advisement!"
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.970617...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Look, even if you see PACs and Parties to be immoral, you still can't
>draw any causal relation between "being in a religion" and "wanting to
>controls lives other than your own."
Maybe not "causal" like the caused results of "like charges repel."
But there ARE common derivations which follow from placing something,
whether God or society or the "public good", as a higher value than
that of an individual's life.
>Of all the people in power, how many follow a religion?
Almost all, if you define "religion" loosely enough.
>Of the number of people in a religion, how many have or seek power?
I'll assume you mean power over others. I'd say 99% plus, of the
influential leaders and founders; much less than that of all "the
people in a religion."
>Probably about half on
>the first, and surely a small percentage on the second. So religion
>can't be a causal factor in the power-hunger that you attribute
>towards "religionists." People in power demand that people in the
>population live according to the prinicples of law,
That right there is a preposterous statement. While it may apply to
the "foot soldiers" like police and prosecutors, it most surely doesn't
apply to those who are really in power. "Principles of law" is about
the lowest thing on their scale of value. And the evidence is how they
conduct themselves, and what they do in their positions of power, all
of which has NOTHING to do with "Rule of Law", as it's meant in the
American tradition.
>for one, which may or may not reflect their personal religious
>principles. The only causal factor that makes people want to decide
>for others, then, is power-hunger, some desire that posesses a numbe
>of people, apparently. regardless of their religion.
>It fact, it seems more to be a function of their culture.
Right---if they're in a culture, the leaders seek power!
>You may not think for me either.
Too weak---one person CANNOT think for another.
>I would add to that that the cultural rights and beliefs that you
>apply to the sorts of ethical situations, where a crime is or isn't
>commited, a moral is or isn't broken, are arbitrary, and not conducive
>to anything beyond a cultural morality, not a new objective reailty
>you seem to be claiming exists.
There's nothing "new" about objective reality, except maybe the
identification of it. If by "arbitrary" you mean "only held by a
person," then I guess I'd have to plead guilty, since I don't know to
what else values or morals could possibly refer. Myself, I wouldn't
use "arbitrary", since that implies that there's no basis for it.
>If rights are objectively derived (I disagree strongly), and morals
>can be derived from rights strongly (I say only weakly) then morals
>are objective, and we just agreed that they are not.
But I said little about "morals" except that the word shouldn't be
used, since it obfuscates.
>I could say it's cultural, because had you been born in a culture that
>had castes, or slaves, or such, then you would feel differently as
>"rights" are applied to different castes or the slave race differently
>(that is, certain castes or the slave race would have lesser value
>than the other castes or races). If you were lucky to be one of the
>worthwhile races or castes, you'd be a liberal who could never
>understand the plight of the lesser, and if you were one of the
>lesser-valued castes or race, nobody would value your ideas anyway.
>You're just one citizen, a partial intellectual, in a culture that
>does not value its intellectuals as they do in Europe, for example.
>Why is it that you're right and the rest of us live a lie?
You don't live a lie; you just mentally accept a contradiction. If
rights are only what are culturally accepted or defined, then you'd
have to say that slaves really DON'T have a right to be free, and
AmerInds didn't have a right to live peacefully, and the Jews and
Gypsies didn't have a right to not be gassed. Do you really believe
those things, or do you believe that, somehow, the concept of "rights"
transcends definition or cultural acceptance?
Clearly, there's a "somehow," for each of us here. Gurk would probably
say it's God; I'm not sure what you'd say; I'd say it's in the nature
of what it is to be human.
>Morality is not objective, therefore is occasionally occurs that
>people find homosexuality immoral. I don't, and you'd have to be DJK
>(see Net.Legends FAQ) to disagree. It is a word that has no objective
>meaning, therefore *you* cannot deal with it. It suits me just fine.
It suits me just fine, too; and I have tons of them. I'm just saying
that it doesn't serve well as a communicative word for conveying
specific concepts.
>God helps those who believe God is helping them.
How do you know this?
>How is God going to help you if you don't believe him?
Can't He do Anything?
>Any assistance He gave would be interpreted by yoiu as coming from
>something else.
So what? Does my interpretation carry more weight than God's actions?
>We all get the same treatment, some call it fortune and luck, others
>call it "God on our side." The two groups described would merely see
>the same thing differently, byt you didn't account for that, did you?
I don't think there's such a thing as "luck," either, except in the
limited context of one person's interpretation. I believe in a fully
causal universe, and nobody has ever presented on iota of evidence to
the contrary.
>But the rights we are granted in the constitution are the only ones
>that out sovereign country will defend and maintain, as required by
>its own rules.
You know, the Constitution consists of limiting the actions of
government officials. It prohibits no actions on the part of citizens,
except in two brief mentions, and you have violated one of them here.
The first is treason, and you're innocent of that. But Amendment 9
states that "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."
Your sentence above construes the enumeration of rights in the
constitution to deny others ("...are the _only_ ones..."). Thus, you
have managed to violate the Constitution, not an easy trick for a
private citizen. Fortunately, since no punishment is provided, you may
retain your right to be outside of prison!
jk
Louis Nick III
On 18 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> >Look, even if you see PACs and Parties to be immoral, you still can't
> >draw any causal relation between "being in a religion" and "wanting to
> >controls lives other than your own."
>
> Maybe not "causal" like the caused results of "like charges repel."
> But there ARE common derivations which follow from placing something,
> whether God or society or the "public good", as a higher value than
> that of an individual's life.
So people who want to be put in charge _may_ have religious motives, and
they _may_ have no religious, but rather, political motives.
> >Of all the people in power, how many follow a religion?
>
> Almost all, if you define "religion" loosely enough.
You have no point. If you define it tightly enough, almost none. Of all
the people in power, how many people consider themselves to be active
holders of religion?
> >Of the number of people in a religion, how many have or seek power?
> I'll assume you mean power over others. I'd say 99% plus, of the
> influential leaders and founders; much less than that of all "the
> people in a religion."
Assume nothing about me. It's your greatest fault when you do. Power
means power over organizations or groups, members of whom have in general
willingly turned over their own intent so that they might be led. I asked
you to speak of all people in a religion, both actual followers and
leaders. They run the spectrum of power-hunger just like
"non-religionists," and your attempts at categorizing "religionists" as
power hungry is no more powerful than categorizing "liberals" as such, or
"dog lovers." (Seen any dogs in the white house lately? I guess the
cat-lovers are getting voctories lately.)
> >Probably about half on
> >the first, and surely a small percentage on the second. So religion
> >can't be a causal factor in the power-hunger that you attribute
> >towards "religionists." People in power demand that people in the
> >population live according to the prinicples of law,
>
> That right there is a preposterous statement. While it may apply to
> the "foot soldiers" like police and prosecutors, it most surely doesn't
> apply to those who are really in power.
Tell that to Bill Clinton, who is a few lawyers away from being indicted
for sexual harassment.
> "Principles of law" is about
> the lowest thing on their scale of value. And the evidence is how they
> conduct themselves, and what they do in their positions of power, all
> of which has NOTHING to do with "Rule of Law", as it's meant in the
> American tradition.
Fine fine fine, as long as you concur that those are qualities of
power-holders, and not merely members of an organized religion.
That said, clearly you have a misunderstanding of "power" which is not
merely power over others, but power over one's life, as other things
affect it.
> >for one, which may or may not reflect their personal religious
> >principles. The only causal factor that makes people want to decide
> >for others, then, is power-hunger, some desire that posesses a numbe
> >of people, apparently. regardless of their religion.
> >It fact, it seems more to be a function of their culture.
>
> Right---if they're in a culture, the leaders seek power!
Let me just re-state what you agreed with: "The only causal factor that
makes people want to decide for others, then, is power-hunger, some desire
that posesses a number of people, apparently." And we already, it would
seem, agree that religion is not related to pwoer-hunger. Ergo, any
belief you hold that "religionists" want power over others is the purest
mass of bullocks.
> >You may not think for me either.
>
> Too weak---one person CANNOT think for another.
Sure one can. You can think in my place. Well, one can think in anothers
place, but if you were to think in my place, things wouldn't be the same.
No, you can't do my thinking for me, that's what I'm here for. What I
meant was that you are incapable of assuming what I say or speaking as my
representative because you have no understanding of me.
> >I would add to that that the cultural rights and beliefs that you
> >apply to the sorts of ethical situations, where a crime is or isn't
> >commited, a moral is or isn't broken, are arbitrary, and not conducive
> >to anything beyond a cultural morality, not a new objective reailty
> >you seem to be claiming exists.
>
> There's nothing "new" about objective reality, except maybe the
> identification of it. If by "arbitrary" you mean "only held by a
> person," then I guess I'd have to plead guilty, since I don't know to
> what else values or morals could possibly refer. Myself, I wouldn't
> use "arbitrary", since that implies that there's no basis for it.
No, it implies that one basis can easily be exchanged for another, just as
your answers would change if your cultural basis did. And that is my
argument, that your answers are based on your culture, not some objective
reality.
> >If rights are objectively derived (I disagree strongly), and morals
> >can be derived from rights strongly (I say only weakly) then morals
> >are objective, and we just agreed that they are not.
>
> But I said little about "morals" except that the word shouldn't be
> used, since it obfuscates.
Obfuscates you, perhaps. I'm using my lexicon to the fullest; it's time
you learned to communicate with people who use such words.
> >I could say it's cultural, because had you been born in a culture that
> >had castes, or slaves, or such, then you would feel differently as
> >"rights" are applied to different castes or the slave race differently
> >(that is, certain castes or the slave race would have lesser value
> >than the other castes or races). If you were lucky to be one of the
> >worthwhile races or castes, you'd be a liberal who could never
> >understand the plight of the lesser, and if you were one of the
> >lesser-valued castes or race, nobody would value your ideas anyway.
> >You're just one citizen, a partial intellectual, in a culture that
> >does not value its intellectuals as they do in Europe, for example.
> >Why is it that you're right and the rest of us live a lie?
>
> You don't live a lie; you just mentally accept a contradiction. If
> rights are only what are culturally accepted or defined, then you'd
> have to say that slaves really DON'T have a right to be free, and
> AmerInds didn't have a right to live peacefully, and the Jews and
> Gypsies didn't have a right to not be gassed. Do you really believe
> those things, or do you believe that, somehow, the concept of "rights"
> transcends definition or cultural acceptance?
When you're through throwing fish to the lurkers, pay attention. BY
DEFINITION, slaves do not have the right to be free. That goes for
American slaves as well as the slaves in the cultures from which ours is
derived, those of Greece and Rome, from which our culture, language, and
philosophies come. AmerInds did not live "in peace" or "in harmony with
nature" as the polically correct paintings of them would have you believe.
They warred with each other, raveged the land on a scale they were
capable, and it was a property of American culture to eradicate them
rather than coexist. That's historical context. Finally, Jews and
Gypsies were second-class citizens for decades before the holocaust, and
the execution of them was only a little more than a culmination of
European hatred of those groups. NOBODY was willing to defend their
rights. That is indistinguishable from them not having been granted
rights. If the US cared, it would have spent bombs destroying death
factories in Auschwitz, but it did not. Who cared? Jews, as well as
intellectuals here and there: people who make it their jobs to care --not
assist and help, but care-- about the sick and abused. Why does the US,
which defends the rights of its own citizens, grant favor to China, which
is well known for human rights violations? Because rights do not exist
above a sovereign level.
> Clearly, there's a "somehow," for each of us here. Gurk would probably
Clearly, I would not accept your "clearly,"
> say it's God; I'm not sure what you'd say; I'd say it's in the nature
> of what it is to be human.
There exists a tradition in human laws to grant rights to citizens under
the law, but there is no trascendant right for anything given to humans.
> >Morality is not objective, therefore is occasionally occurs that
> >people find homosexuality immoral. I don't, and you'd have to be DJK
> >(see Net.Legends FAQ) to disagree. It is a word that has no objective
> >meaning, therefore *you* cannot deal with it. It suits me just fine.
>
> It suits me just fine, too; and I have tons of them. I'm just saying
> that it doesn't serve well as a communicative word for conveying
> specific concepts.
Tons of what? Morals? Homosexuals? Daniel J. Karnes!?! Morals are
defined quite well as a classification of rules with certain basis
(subjective personal) and with certain coverage (actions) and certain
consequences (branded Good or Bad). If Webster can define morals, you
certainly may.
> >God helps those who believe God is helping them.
> How do you know this?
I asked someone who believed in God, he said that he believes God helps
him. And who are we to disgree? You can challenge the person's
credibility, but you are in no position to challenge the person's
premises, and neither am I.
> >How is God going to help you if you don't believe him?
> Can't He do Anything?
But you wouldn't see it as God's help if you don't believe in him. He
helped you get up this morning, but you don't buy that because you don't
believe, you believe you did it all by yourself.
> >Any assistance He gave would be interpreted by yoiu as coming from
> >something else.
> So what? Does my interpretation carry more weight than God's actions?
See, now, there's your objectivism again. God does act objectively,
unless you, an objectivist, believe he does. But you, as I stated,
whether true or not but for the purposes of this discussion, do not
believe in God. Ergo, His actions are fantasies of people who believe in
him (per your interpretation) and you interpret events and miracles and
ordinary happenstance through your own objectivist tenets.
> >We all get the same treatment, some call it fortune and luck, others
> >call it "God on our side." The two groups described would merely see
> >the same thing differently, byt you didn't account for that, did you?
>
> I don't think there's such a thing as "luck," either, except in the
> limited context of one person's interpretation.
That limited context is all there is. There is nothing greater. You said
yourself that one CANNOT think for another, yet you just did the thinking
for everyone else.
> I believe in a fully
> causal universe, and nobody has ever presented on iota of evidence to
> the contrary.
Nor could they ever, to your satisfaction. Just realize that this is a
belief, prone to change for whatever reason, not the least of which is
evidence. If they produced evidence, however, you would not hold this
belief, thus there is no evidence that could prove you are wrong and still
have you thinking that you are correct.
> >But the rights we are granted in the constitution are the only ones
> >that out sovereign country will defend and maintain, as required by
> >its own rules.
>
> You know, the Constitution consists of limiting the actions of
> government officials. It prohibits no actions on the part of citizens,
> except in two brief mentions, and you have violated one of them here.
> The first is treason, and you're innocent of that. But Amendment 9
> states that "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights
> shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people."
> Your sentence above construes the enumeration of rights in the
> constitution to deny others ("...are the _only_ ones..."). Thus, you
> have managed to violate the Constitution, not an easy trick for a
> private citizen. Fortunately, since no punishment is provided, you may
> retain your right to be outside of prison!
Hah hah, how clever and amusing. However, you'll note that the
constitution is that which grants all rights to citizens, and I spoke of
the very rights that exist in the constitution. That is, I initially
included *all* the rights "retained by the people." I don't even need to
ask my lawyer before following up. Your statement about punishment
reflects your ignorance of constitutional law, but I'll let that slide.
Anyway, I'd love to watch you (without a lawyer, who is a trained member
of the bar, and this inadequate for your purpose) to argue before 9
justices that there are higher, objectivist rights than those granted by
the Constitution, a sort of conclusion that by their very oath cannot
make.
10 minutes of solid comedy.
Jim Klein
In <33a76fff...@news.onramp.net> eho...@onramp.net (E.Holmes)
writes:
>/Remember, rights can be waived.
>
> Indeed. And rights can be forfeited by criminal activity.
> Indicating that rights are a function of law rather than nature.
Wrong. You are confusing two usages of the same word. The "rights"
that you "waive" are indeed legally enumerated rights; nothing else
would make sense in that context.
But there are also the "inalienable rights" referred to in the
Declaration of Independence. Without arguing about their derivation,
if they're inalienable, then they can't be written away, right?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you accept only the first sense
of rights, then you're left with declaring that slaves don't have the
right to be free, since slavery is often written into law. Also, you'd
have to conclude that Jews and Gypsies didn't have the "right to life"
in Nazi-occupied territories during the 40s, as their extermination was
carried out in accordance with the law.
jk
Jim Klein
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.970618...@becker2.u.washington.edu>
Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>So people who want to be put in charge _may_ have religious motives,
>and they _may_ have no religious, but rather, political motives.
Sure, though they always must have some philosophical principles which
yield that they ought to have power over others.
Y'know, my goal here is not to slam religion; I don't know how we've
gotten sidetracked onto this. I really don't give a hoot what someone
believes; it's their ACTIONS which concern me.
>> Almost all, if you define "religion" loosely enough.
>
>You have no point. If you define it tightly enough, almost none. Of
>all the people in power, how many people consider themselves to be
>active holders of religion?
They ALL consider themselves active holders of a morality which gives
them some divine right to control the actions of others. My point
concerns THAT, not whether "religion" is an accurate term for it.
>Assume nothing about me. It's your greatest fault when you do.
I should be so perfect!
>Power means power over organizations or groups, members of whom have
>in general willingly turned over their own intent so that they might
>be led. I asked you to speak of all people in a religion, both actual
>followers and leaders. They run the spectrum of power-hunger just
>like "non-religionists," and your attempts at categorizing
>"religionists" as power hungry is no more powerful than categorizing
>"liberals" as such, or "dog lovers."
I've already conceded that I over-generalized when referring to "most
religionists," but you go too far the other way. You imply that the
correlation between power-hunger and liberalism or dog-loving is
equivalent. I'd say the evidence indicates otherwise.
>>"Principles of law" is about the lowest thing on their scale of
>>value. And the evidence is how they conduct themselves, and what
>>they do in their positions of power, all of which has NOTHING to do
>>with "Rule of Law", as it's meant in the American tradition.
>
>Fine fine fine, as long as you concur that those are qualities of
>power-holders, and not merely members of an organized religion.
I concur, I concur, I concur. What the hell more do you want?
>That said, clearly you have a misunderstanding of "power" which is not
>merely power over others, but power over one's life, as other things
>affect it.
Why do you think I misunderstand it? It's just that power over others
is more relevant in the political context, when it interferes with
another person's power over his own life. THAT is what concerns me;
it's none of my business from whence another person derives the power
over his life, UNTIL it interferes with mine.
>Let me just re-state what you agreed with: "The only causal factor
>that makes people want to decide for others, then, is power-hunger,
>some desire that posesses a number of people, apparently." And we
>already, it would seem, agree that religion is not related to
>pwoer-hunger.
No, I don't agree with that; I still think there IS a correlation, in
that both are based on the life of an individual not being the highest
value. But I am NOT claiming necessary causation.
>Ergo, any belief you hold that "religionists" want power over others
>is the purest mass of bullocks.
SOME religionists want power over others, and SOME power-seekers derive
their "morality" from religion.
>> Too weak---one person CANNOT think for another.
>
>Sure one can. You can think in my place. Well, one can think in
>anothers place, but if you were to think in my place, things wouldn't
>be the same.
>No, you can't do my thinking for me, that's what I'm here for. What I
>meant was that you are incapable of assuming what I say or speaking as
>my representative because you have no understanding of me.
"No understanding" is too strong. I'll bet you've taken breaths for
the last 24 hours; I know you have a brain; in fact, I know lots and
lots about you. But you're right---I know almost nothing of how you
derive your conclusions.
>> But I said little about "morals" except that the word shouldn't be
>> used, since it obfuscates.
>
>Obfuscates you, perhaps. I'm using my lexicon to the fullest; it's
>time you learned to communicate with people who use such words.
I'd say that "using lexicon to the fullest" involves clear and
unambiguous discussion. "Morals" does not lend itself well, to that.
>When you're through throwing fish to the lurkers, pay attention. BY
>DEFINITION, slaves do not have the right to be free.
Sure, by the definition you're choosing to use. You could also define
freedom as slavery, or water as bread, if you so choose. So what?
You're pretending that you're stating a fact of reality, through the
use of a definition. You might find it interesting that the most
formal of Objectivists also commit this error, with great regularity.
>That goes for American slaves as well as the slaves in the cultures
>from which ours is derived, those of Greece and Rome, from which our
>culture, language, and philosophies come.
Uh-huh. And what exactly are the "inalienable rights" mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence?
>AmerInds did not live "in peace" or "in harmony with
>nature" as the polically correct paintings of them would have you
>believe.
>They warred with each other, raveged the land on a scale they were
>capable, and it was a property of American culture to eradicate them
>rather than coexist. That's historical context. Finally, Jews and
>Gypsies were second-class citizens for decades before the holocaust,
>and the execution of them was only a little more than a culmination of
>European hatred of those groups. NOBODY was willing to defend their
>rights. That is indistinguishable from them not having been granted
>rights.
Sure, if rights are "granted". To me, "inalienable" is quite a
different concept that "granted".
BTW, your portrayal of the AmerInds is a gross over-generalization.
>If the US cared, it would have spent bombs destroying death
>factories in Auschwitz, but it did not. Who cared? Jews, as well as
>intellectuals here and there: people who make it their jobs to care
>--not assist and help, but care-- about the sick and abused. Why does
>the US, which defends the rights of its own citizens, grant favor to
>China, which is well known for human rights violations? Because
>rights do not exist above a sovereign level.
This last I happen to agree with, but I think the ultimate "sovereign
level" is that of an individual.
>> Clearly, there's a "somehow," for each of us here. Gurk would
>>probably
>
>Clearly, I would not accept your "clearly,"
Really? Why, you're the exception? You don't have a "somehow"??
>There exists a tradition in human laws to grant rights to citizens
>under the law, but there is no trascendant right for anything given to
>humans.
This is just SO interesting! Gurk says that God is the source for what
we, as humans, have. You're apparently saying that "the law" is, at
least as far as rights are concerned. I'm sure that Gurk doesn't
consider God a creation of man, so I'm curious: do you consider "the
law" a creation of men?
>Tons of what? Morals? Homosexuals? Daniel J. Karnes!?! Morals are
>defined quite well as a classification of rules with certain basis
>(subjective personal) and with certain coverage (actions) and certain
>consequences (branded Good or Bad).
This shows why it's so weak, for communicative purposes. ANY
subjective personal basis? ALL actions? Branded by WHOM?
>If Webster can define morals, you certainly may.
Dictionaries are primarily descriptive tools, in that they summarize
the most common usages of words. That there can be a general summary
of the common usage of a word hardly establishes that the word has a
clear and succinct "meaning".
>> >How is God going to help you if you don't believe him?
>> Can't He do Anything?
>
>But you wouldn't see it as God's help if you don't believe in him. He
>helped you get up this morning, but you don't buy that because you
>don't believe, you believe you did it all by yourself.
So what? If God really did it, isn't it just as true whether I believe
it or not? Here, you're reduced to positing that nothing really
happened EXCEPT what I believed, but you won't say so explicitly, I
guess. Why, I'm not sure.
>See, now, there's your objectivism again. God does act objectively,
>unless you, an objectivist, believe he does.
I assume you left out "not", but even then, I really don't get your
intended meaning here.
>> I don't think there's such a thing as "luck," either, except in the
>> limited context of one person's interpretation.
>
>That limited context is all there is. There is nothing greater.
Really...would you care to share how it is that you know this?
>You said yourself that one CANNOT think for another, yet you just did
>the thinking for everyone else.
I did no such thing. I gave my appraisal of what I think the actuality
of reality is. It may be interpretation, but it's assumed that there
IS a reality of which one can speak. Apparently, you don't think there
is, but for some reason won't come right out and say so.
>>Your sentence above construes the enumeration of rights in the
>>constitution to deny others ("...are the _only_ ones..."). Thus, you
>>have managed to violate the Constitution, not an easy trick for a
>>private citizen. Fortunately, since no punishment is provided, you
>>may retain your right to be outside of prison!
>
>Hah hah, how clever and amusing. However, you'll note that the
>constitution is that which grants all rights to citizens,
Does it grant those "inalienable rights," too? What if it didn't?
>and I spoke of the very rights that exist in the constitution. That
>is, I initially included *all* the rights "retained by the people." I
>don't even need to ask my lawyer before following up. Your statement
>about punishment reflects your ignorance of constitutional law,
How so?
>Anyway, I'd love to watch you (without a lawyer, who is a trained
>member of the bar, and this inadequate for your purpose) to argue
>before 9 justices that there are higher, objectivist rights than those
>granted by the Constitution, a sort of conclusion that by their very
>oath cannot make.
Actually, they've taken an oath to acknowledge that there ARE rights
which are NOT explicitly stated in the Constitution, by virtue of the
9th and 10th Amendments. Technically, that makes the crime which THEY
have committed treason, as well as perjury.
>10 minutes of solid comedy.
Sure, just like in any courtroom where Constitutional law is closely
considered. I guess you like that, but I wonder why you don't see the
correlation between THAT and the fact that we have "no morals" that you
brought up in an earlier post.
jk
Louis Nick III
On 19 Jun 1997, Jim Klein wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >So people who want to be put in charge _may_ have religious motives,
> >and they _may_ have no religious, but rather, political motives.
>
> Sure, though they always must have some philosophical principles which
> yield that they ought to have power over others.
I assume you're talking about religionists, here, and say that that is an
assumption you hold, having insufficient knowledge of the people and
practices of religion.
> Y'know, my goal here is not to slam religion; I don't know how we've
> gotten sidetracked onto this.
I replied to two of your articles, one in the thread we shared, and one
which was a debate between you and Gurk. You followed up to the latter,
and we appropriated Gurk's thread.
> >> Almost all, if you define "religion" loosely enough.
> >
> >You have no point. If you define it tightly enough, almost none. Of
> >all the people in power, how many people consider themselves to be
> >active holders of religion?
>
> They ALL consider themselves active holders of a morality which gives
> them some divine right to control the actions of others. My point
> concerns THAT, not whether "religion" is an accurate term for it.
So you cannot tell if religion has any causal factor. You'd be equally
right to say that religionists are sheep, following the power-hungry
without complaint.
> >Power means power over organizations or groups, members of whom have
> >in general willingly turned over their own intent so that they might
> >be led. I asked you to speak of all people in a religion, both actual
> >followers and leaders. They run the spectrum of power-hunger just
> >like "non-religionists," and your attempts at categorizing
> >"religionists" as power hungry is no more powerful than categorizing
> >"liberals" as such, or "dog lovers."
>
> I've already conceded that I over-generalized when referring to "most
> religionists," but you go too far the other way. You imply that the
> correlation between power-hunger and liberalism or dog-loving is
> equivalent. I'd say the evidence indicates otherwise.
You say either that religion is causal or it's not related. Religion so
pervades the rulers and followers of this land, that you can argue mere
correlation to anything from nose-picking to colon cancer. Argue
causation, or drop the point as lost.
> >Fine fine fine, as long as you concur that those are qualities of
> >power-holders, and not merely members of an organized religion.
>
> I concur, I concur, I concur. What the hell more do you want?
I'll restate: Causation, not correlation. Second, I'd like you to read my
posts all the way before responding, because when I say something three
times, I'm not responding to you as you've followed up to the first two.
It's not like the thing above is further badgering you after I've alread
been satisfied (as you hoped) by your previous statements.
> >That said, clearly you have a misunderstanding of "power" which is not
> >merely power over others, but power over one's life, as other things
> >affect it.
>
> Why do you think I misunderstand it? It's just that power over others
> is more relevant in the political context, when it interferes with
> another person's power over his own life. THAT is what concerns me;
> it's none of my business from whence another person derives the power
> over his life, UNTIL it interferes with mine.
Power over groups who give their power to the leader is the fabric of the
country, political context or no. If you're feeling oppressed by the
government, say so, because your language is difficult to decode with so
few clues as to meaning. So let me put it this way. You grant power to
the government for partial control over your life. They provide defense,
interstate commerce, etc. You provide taxes, obey the law, no matter how
boneheaded it is --as long as it isn't against the constitution.
> >Let me just re-state what you agreed with: "The only causal factor
> >that makes people want to decide for others, then, is power-hunger,
> >some desire that posesses a number of people, apparently." And we
> >already, it would seem, agree that religion is not related to
> >pwoer-hunger.
>
> No, I don't agree with that; I still think there IS a correlation, in
> that both are based on the life of an individual not being the highest
> value. But I am NOT claiming necessary causation.
They are based on such for entirely different reasons, and the fact that
you seem them the same is at best a coincidence, at worst wishful
thinking. I suppose you, or perhaps objectivists, see the human
individual as having the highest value?
> SOME religionists want power over others, and SOME power-seekers derive
> their "morality" from religion.
Agreed.
> >> Too weak---one person CANNOT think for another.
> >
> >Sure one can. You can think in my place. Well, one can think in
> >anothers place, but if you were to think in my place, things wouldn't
> >be the same.
> >No, you can't do my thinking for me, that's what I'm here for. What I
> >meant was that you are incapable of assuming what I say or speaking as
> >my representative because you have no understanding of me.
>
> "No understanding" is too strong. I'll bet you've taken breaths for
> the last 24 hours; I know you have a brain; in fact, I know lots and
> lots about you. But you're right---I know almost nothing of how you
> derive your conclusions.
Wrong and wrong again. I am a mass of fungal growth under 12 acres of
trees in Western Montana. I respire, but I have no lungs. I'm the only
of my kind with a T1 line interface evolved. My "brain" is actually not
centralized, but all the functions of a human brain are performed by
general-function elements located all over my multi-ton mass.
Point being, what you "know" are just common sense cultural guesses.
> >Obfuscates you, perhaps. I'm using my lexicon to the fullest; it's
> >time you learned to communicate with people who use such words.
>
> I'd say that "using lexicon to the fullest" involves clear and
> unambiguous discussion. "Morals" does not lend itself well, to that.
If you'd read all the way through the article first... eh, the lesson is
lost on you.
> >When you're through throwing fish to the lurkers, pay attention. BY
> >DEFINITION, slaves do not have the right to be free.
>
> Sure, by the definition you're choosing to use. You could also define
> freedom as slavery, or water as bread, if you so choose. So what?
> You're pretending that you're stating a fact of reality, through the
> use of a definition.
Gee, what besides the law and reality as it is perceived by contemporaries
counts towards understanding slaves? They are second-class citizens, at
best. Nobody will fight for them to have the same rights as first-class
citizens. And yeah, I could define those words as such, but I'd fail to
communicate, thus eliminating any "advantage" I thought I might have had
by bucking cultural convention.
> >That goes for American slaves as well as the slaves in the cultures
> >from which ours is derived, those of Greece and Rome, from which our
> >culture, language, and philosophies come.
>
> Uh-huh. And what exactly are the "inalienable rights" mentioned in the
> Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence is a rhetorical document stating the case
persuasively to a king who refused to grant and defend the basic rights
that the colonists deserved. They became second-class british citizens,
and revolted. The "inalienable rights" bit was a persuasive argument, not
necessarily a reference to extant rights. Seeing as how the same folks
and their contemporaries wrote and/or approved the Constitution and Bill
of Rights, they would have sought to allow those rights into the
constitution.
What about the "inalienable rights" of slaves owned by those who wrote the
Declaration of Independence? It could be demonstrated, I'd wager, that
even the authors of the DoI did not believe in objective human rights.
> >AmerInds did not live "in peace" or "in harmony with
> >nature" as the polically correct paintings of them would have you
> >believe.
> >They warred with each other, raveged the land on a scale they were
> >capable, and it was a property of American culture to eradicate them
> >rather than coexist. That's historical context. Finally, Jews and
> >Gypsies were second-class citizens for decades before the holocaust,
> >and the execution of them was only a little more than a culmination of
> >European hatred of those groups. NOBODY was willing to defend their
> >rights. That is indistinguishable from them not having been granted
> >rights.
>
> Sure, if rights are "granted". To me, "inalienable" is quite a
> different concept that "granted".
Same with me, but there is no evidence, historical, political, or
legislative, to reason that "Inalienable Rights" exist.
> BTW, your portrayal of the AmerInds is a gross over-generalization.
No more than yours. "In peace." That's BS.
> >If the US cared, it would have spent bombs destroying death
> >factories in Auschwitz, but it did not. Who cared? Jews, as well as
> >intellectuals here and there: people who make it their jobs to care
> >--not assist and help, but care-- about the sick and abused. Why does
> >the US, which defends the rights of its own citizens, grant favor to
> >China, which is well known for human rights violations? Because
> >rights do not exist above a sovereign level.
>
> This last I happen to agree with, but I think the ultimate "sovereign
> level" is that of an individual.
Fine, then I guess if you were to kill someone, it would be and "Act of
War" and when you get arrested by the Police Allience, and sentenced in
the Great Allaince court to serve time as monitored by some of the lesser
nations in the police alliance. You go on living like that, and I'll have
an equally good time living in political reality.
> >> Clearly, there's a "somehow," for each of us here. Gurk would
> >>probably
> >
> >Clearly, I would not accept your "clearly,"
>
> Really? Why, you're the exception? You don't have a "somehow"??
There are plenty of people like me; I'm no exception. I'm in a minority,
sure. I don't have a "somehow," no.
> >There exists a tradition in human laws to grant rights to citizens
> >under the law, but there is no trascendant right for anything given to
> >humans.
>
> This is just SO interesting! Gurk says that God is the source for what
> we, as humans, have. You're apparently saying that "the law" is, at
> least as far as rights are concerned. I'm sure that Gurk doesn't
> consider God a creation of man, so I'm curious: do you consider "the
> law" a creation of men?
The law, and the rights therein are created and enforced by man.
Sovereign nations exist above the national Law, and above cultural morals
for that matter. Sovereign nations interact accoridng to a whole host of
theories, but don't subscribe to any law.
> >Tons of what? Morals? Homosexuals? Daniel J. Karnes!?! Morals are
> >defined quite well as a classification of rules with certain basis
> >(subjective personal) and with certain coverage (actions) and certain
> >consequences (branded Good or Bad).
>
> This shows why it's so weak, for communicative purposes. ANY
> subjective personal basis? ALL actions? Branded by WHOM?
Personal --> Individual. All Actions morally judged by the individual.
Branded by the individual. This is easy.
> >If Webster can define morals, you certainly may.
>
> Dictionaries are primarily descriptive tools, in that they summarize
> the most common usages of words. That there can be a general summary
> of the common usage of a word hardly establishes that the word has a
> clear and succinct "meaning".
Just a week ago you were telling me that the common meaning is the one
that should be regarded over specialized meaning, and that words could not
be used beyond their common usage. Now dictionaries are merely rules of
thumb, a tool and not a source of information?
What do you think it means? If you don't "know" because it doesn't fit in
your objectivist lexicon, just say so. It's meaning is crystal clear to
me, just like the words "ethics" and "laws."
> >> >How is God going to help you if you don't believe him?
> >> Can't He do Anything?
> >
> >But you wouldn't see it as God's help if you don't believe in him. He
> >helped you get up this morning, but you don't buy that because you
> >don't believe, you believe you did it all by yourself.
>
> So what? If God really did it, isn't it just as true whether I believe
> it or not? Here, you're reduced to positing that nothing really
> happened EXCEPT what I believed, but you won't say so explicitly, I
> guess. Why, I'm not sure.
God can only "do it" in belief. That something was done, and attributed
to God is belief. That something was done, and attributed to nature or
causation or the supernatural or whatever is a matter of belief. God is
not an objective actor.
> >See, now, there's your objectivism again. God does act objectively,
> >unless you, an objectivist, believe he does.
>
> I assume you left out "not", but even then, I really don't get your
> intended meaning here.
I did leave out "not." My meaning: God is interpretation of belief about
the cause or source of an action, not a deterministic actor.
> >> I don't think there's such a thing as "luck," either, except in the
> >> limited context of one person's interpretation.
> >
> >That limited context is all there is. There is nothing greater.
>
> Really...would you care to share how it is that you know this?
No, would you care to provide definive counter-proof? You can't. I can,
however, show that my context does not extend above my being. If it did,
I'd be thinking for other people.
> >You said yourself that one CANNOT think for another, yet you just did
> >the thinking for everyone else.
>
> I did no such thing. I gave my appraisal of what I think the actuality
> of reality is. It may be interpretation, but it's assumed that there
> IS a reality of which one can speak. Apparently, you don't think there
> is, but for some reason won't come right out and say so.
Your assumption of reality is just that, an assumption, a fundamental
belief, fundamental to your being and take on life, but it can be no more
proven or disproven than my own take. You seem unwilling to accept the
possibility that you're wrong in what you believe, rather that your
objective reality does not extent beyond your skull.
> >>Your sentence above construes the enumeration of rights in the
> >>constitution to deny others ("...are the _only_ ones..."). Thus, you
> >>have managed to violate the Constitution, not an easy trick for a
> >>private citizen. Fortunately, since no punishment is provided, you
> >>may retain your right to be outside of prison!
> >
> >Hah hah, how clever and amusing. However, you'll note that the
> >constitution is that which grants all rights to citizens,
>
> Does it grant those "inalienable rights," too? What if it didn't?
No, it can't. It is a law, nothing more.
> >and I spoke of the very rights that exist in the constitution. That
> >is, I initially included *all* the rights "retained by the people." I
> >don't even need to ask my lawyer before following up. Your statement
> >about punishment reflects your ignorance of constitutional law,
>
> How so?
The Constitution does not describe punishment. That is done at a state or
federal level, in a previous trial.
> >Anyway, I'd love to watch you (without a lawyer, who is a trained
> >member of the bar, and this inadequate for your purpose) to argue
> >before 9 justices that there are higher, objectivist rights than those
> >granted by the Constitution, a sort of conclusion that by their very
> >oath cannot make.
>
> Actually, they've taken an oath to acknowledge that there ARE rights
> which are NOT explicitly stated in the Constitution, by virtue of the
> 9th and 10th Amendments. Technically, that makes the crime which THEY
> have committed treason, as well as perjury.
Okay, reality check. Your interpretation of the Constitution, versus
theirs. Who wins?
SUPREME COURT WINS.
FLAWLESS VICTORY.
> >10 minutes of solid comedy.
>
> Sure, just like in any courtroom where Constitutional law is closely
> considered. I guess you like that, but I wonder why you don't see the
> correlation between THAT and the fact that we have "no morals" that you
> brought up in an earlier post.
We don't have objective morals. Obviously, since morlals and objective
morals are one in the same, a matter of redundancy, for an objectivist
like you, you can't allow yourself to understand certain elements of what
I say, and separate them from others. Also, rights, lawful rights, are
not morals. It so happens that my morals tend to follow the law, and
certainly not merely coincidentally, but rights and morals are as separate
for me as they are in convention, as they would be in your objective
realm.
Louis Nick III
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
> Louis Nick III <sn...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >> It frightens me to see such a smart man through reason out the window like you
> >> just have. If the inner voice you hear from God ever tells you something that
> >> is in conflict with your mind, will you obey it?
>
> >the image we have and hold for him these days. He was religious, so much
> >so that he sacrificed his science at times.
>
> To me, this proves nothing. I learned long ago that eggheads can be
> pretty clueless sometimes.
Exactly my point. The notion of the "Clueless egghead" was created by
media and government, so it could wrest control of military science
(specifically the A-Bomb) from those that understood it best. Portraying
scientists as so smart they could not comprehend the realities of everyday
life, politics, etc., the military easily looked like the good guy in
taking this weapon away from the scientists, who wanted it never to be
used.
Michael Straight
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>
> >In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
>
> >: Does reality change?
>
> >In what sense? From God's perspective, because He sees the whole timeline
> >at once, His own Present, nothing can change. Now, if we're dealing with
> >the human perspective within linear time, yes, reality changes constantly,
> >at least, the material portion of it. The immaterial in the greater sense
> >is always essentially the same.
>
> I seem to recall a few classes in my dull-as-hell pholosphy class had
> to deal with the problems with a god that knew everything.
Um...uhh...I think I remember taking a class that had something to do with
what you guys are talking about. Cool, huh?
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
: >The Truth is that the Loving and Just God who created us wants to have a
: >relationship with us, His creation, and that that relationship engenders
: >in us a natural desire and tendency to follow His morality.
: Christianity seems somewhat oblvious to the fact that there are many
: other cultures out there that have developed without the aid of "God."
What? Name one. Name a single culture which has throughout history
developed its foundation without any notion of deity.
: Alla or Jehova maybe, but not God. What happens to them?
Multiple words for the same Being. Geesh. Take some language courses.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick T2, Technical Staph, Stewart Theatre, NCSU
t h e a t r e l i g h t i n g g e e k e x t r a o r d i n a i r e
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
: > As to the voice of God,
: >well, He has never told me anything which seemed antithetical to my mind,
: >except where I was holding an untrue belief. The way it usually works
: >(though this is difficult to describe in concrete terms) is that He'll
: >bring my attention to a view or action in my head and it'll appear quite
: >plainly to be somewhat ridiculous or wrong. I'll investigate it further,
: >often reading stuff in the Bible or by the ancients or by friends whom I
: >respect, and I'll see -how- it is ridiculous or wrong.
: Still, if you eliminate faith nothing that you've just described can't
: be explained. God doesn't tell you "anything which seemed antithetical
: to your mind" because YOU were producing what "he" was telling.
So -you- say. The fact that you may be able to come up with multiple
explanations which seem valid to you has zero bearing on the truth of
my observations.
: lee
: remember Gruk, I'm just discussing stuff. I'm not trying to piss you
: off.
I wasn't aware that I was pissed off.
--Gurk, and don't call me Gruk.
--
== Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick == GURK, PROPHET OF SMERP ==
|| asda...@unity.ncsu.edu || Trust what I tell you. ||
== ncsu.soc --> ncsu.* --> == triangle.bizarre --> * ==
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
: >In what sense? From God's perspective, because He sees the whole timeline
: >at once, His own Present, nothing can change. Now, if we're dealing with
: >the human perspective within linear time, yes, reality changes constantly,
: >at least, the material portion of it. The immaterial in the greater sense
: >is always essentially the same.
: I seem to recall a few classes in my dull-as-hell pholosphy class had
: to deal with the problems with a god that knew everything.
OK, expound then. Tell us some of those dull-as-Hell philosophies which
tell you why God can't know everything.
--Gurk
--
Poet Philosopher Fanatic Fool Madman Substantialist
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick
n u l l u m m a g n u m i n g e n i u m s i n e m i x t u r a
d e m e n t i a e f u i t
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
: >Oh, I can question my beliefs. I do all the time, in fact. Real
: >Christians -do- ask why. (Which happens to be the title of a book,
: >incidentally.) The questioning leads to strengthening, revision,
: >and deeper understanding.
: The difference between religious people and non-religious people is a
: matter of faith. I really don't care what someone belives as long as
: it doesn't hurt me or anyone else that doesn't want to be hurt. Just
: don't judge me or try to convert me is all I ask.
I don't have the ability to do either. Only God can judge. (Fortunately,
He had many of those judgments written down for us.) Only God can convert,
because only God can change the heart.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick - Prophet of Smerp
Smerpology will make your teeth clean and white.
"I don't believe it...I'm MULTIDIMENSIONAL!!!"
-Smerp
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>: Still, if you eliminate faith nothing that you've just described can't
>: be explained. God doesn't tell you "anything which seemed antithetical
>: to your mind" because YOU were producing what "he" was telling.
>So -you- say. The fact that you may be able to come up with multiple
>explanations which seem valid to you has zero bearing on the truth of
>my observations.
We should go beyond "truth" to the "facts."
>: lee
>: remember Gruk, I'm just discussing stuff. I'm not trying to piss you
>: off.
>I wasn't aware that I was pissed off.
I know, but sometimes people think I'm being ornery when I'm just
discussing the issue at hand.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
>: >The Truth is that the Loving and Just God who created us wants to have a
>: >relationship with us, His creation, and that that relationship engenders
>: >in us a natural desire and tendency to follow His morality.
>: Christianity seems somewhat oblvious to the fact that there are many
>: other cultures out there that have developed without the aid of "God."
>What? Name one. Name a single culture which has throughout history
>developed its foundation without any notion of deity.
>: Alla or Jehova maybe, but not God. What happens to them?
>Multiple words for the same Being. Geesh. Take some language courses.
I know that. Maybe I should have said some Indian god er something.
But when you think about it, many people who believe in each of those
names for God don't think that they ARE the same. That's why they seem
to enjoy killing worshipers of the other names.
lee
> --Gurk
>--
>Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick T2, Technical Staph, Stewart Theatre, NCSU
>t h e a t r e l i g h t i n g g e e k e x t r a o r d i n a i r e
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner
gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>In alt.fan.the-bob did L. Shelton Bumgarner a stately USENET-post decree:
>: >Oh, I can question my beliefs. I do all the time, in fact. Real
>: >Christians -do- ask why. (Which happens to be the title of a book,
>: >incidentally.) The questioning leads to strengthening, revision,
>: >and deeper understanding.
>: The difference between religious people and non-religious people is a
>: matter of faith. I really don't care what someone belives as long as
>: it doesn't hurt me or anyone else that doesn't want to be hurt. Just
>: don't judge me or try to convert me is all I ask.
>I don't have the ability to do either. Only God can judge. (Fortunately,
>He had many of those judgments written down for us.) Only God can convert,
>because only God can change the heart.
But there are so many different versions of The One True Way. To me,
if Christianity were The Truth there would be One religion. If God is
so perfect, he/she/it sure does hide the fact. Why not just come out
of the sky and kick some butt?
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
>> gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) wrote:
>>
>> >In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
>>
>> >: Does reality change?
>>
>> >In what sense? From God's perspective, because He sees the whole timeline
>> >at once, His own Present, nothing can change. Now, if we're dealing with
>> >the human perspective within linear time, yes, reality changes constantly,
>> >at least, the material portion of it. The immaterial in the greater sense
>> >is always essentially the same.
>>
>> I seem to recall a few classes in my dull-as-hell pholosphy class had
>> to deal with the problems with a god that knew everything.
>Um...uhh...I think I remember taking a class that had something to do with
>what you guys are talking about. Cool, huh?
No need to be nasty. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I'll
think about it and see if I can produce the theory I was told in the
class.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
sn...@u.washington.edu (Louis Nick III) wrote:
>Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>>Does reality change?
>>If so, HOW?
>During your lifetime, your perception of reality changes.
>This is not distinguishable from actual change in reality.
>Thus, reality may change, you'd never be able to tell for sure whether it
>was reality changing and not just you, or vice versa.
I often think about the fact that there is no real different between
what is perceived and what is real. There is no way for the human mind
to tell the difference.
Michael Straight
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
> But there are so many different versions of The One True Way. To me,
> if Christianity were The Truth there would be One religion. If God is
> so perfect, he/she/it sure does hide the fact. Why not just come out
> of the sky and kick some butt?
You don't believe in God because he doesn't act more like a comic book
character?
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT