the serious personally responsible thread.....
Jeremy Dixon
>>us, just like.....computer keyboards.
>Just who does what "through us?" Who is the doer? If we This is the most
>bankrupt philosophy I've ever heard of!
Robert Mathews?
OK....why do you imagine there is any doer? When the wind blows through
the grass who is the doer?
What is a 'doer" according to you? Some uncaused immaterial little
humunculus sitting in yr brain? Yr "soul" ? (hah!) I don't think you've
given much thought to the issues.
Are you so keen on personal responsibility because you want to take
it......or is it because you want those pesky other people to take it and
stop doing things which you don't like? (Its all their fault isn't it,
they oughta take more personal responsibity!)
-j
"New Tolpuddle Anarchist" at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/
Robert Matthews
>>>We do what is done through
>>>us, just like.....computer keyboards.
>
>>Just who does what "through us?" Who is the doer? If we This is the most
>>bankrupt philosophy I've ever heard of!
>
>Robert Mathews?
>
Just to let you know that wasn't me who sent the post your responding to.
I sent the original post asking for some opinions.
Bob
Dave Hayman
Jeremy Dixon wrote:
>
> >>We do what is done through
> >>us, just like.....computer keyboards.
>
> >Just who does what "through us?" Who is the doer? If we This is the most
> >bankrupt philosophy I've ever heard of!
>
> Robert Mathews?
No, if you had concentrated enough to read the entire post, and paid
attention, you'd know it came from Brother Igloo, er, Michael Lewis. At
first I thought he was being too hard on you, but I've had to revise
that opinion.
> OK....why do you imagine there is any doer? When the wind blows through
> the grass who is the doer?
The wind. Next question? Make it a bit harder, OK?
> What is a 'doer" according to you? Some uncaused immaterial little
> humunculus sitting in yr brain? Yr "soul" ? (hah!) I don't think you've
> given much thought to the issues.
The "doer" is the person who did it. The fact that we don't know
everything about what a person is or how our conscious will is
translated into physical action does not prevent us from using this
handy, even vital, simplification. BTW, "who" are you chiding for not
thinking enough?
> Are you so keen on personal responsibility because you want to take
> it......or is it because you want those pesky other people to take it and
> stop doing things which you don't like? (Its all their fault isn't it,
> they oughta take more personal responsibity!)
>
> -j
I'm "keen on personal responsibility" because I don't see how any human
society could manage without it. Jrrrmy is good at repeating himself and
sneering at those who disagree with him, but I don't think he can
explain how he manages to survive without the concept of "personal
responsibility".
Jeremy Dixon
"New Tolpuddle Anarchist" at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Dave Hayman wrote:
>
> > OK....why do you imagine there is any doer? When the wind blows through
> > the grass who is the doer?
>
> The wind. Next question? Make it a bit harder, OK?
>
cool. and the wind has "personal reponsibility" ?
um...dave.....another thing. you seem pretty keen to believe that i want
to insult you.
i don't.
as yr not really interested in the questions that i am (which is what it
comes to) is there a whole lot of point in the conversation? i mean, you
haven't asked the questions i'm grappling with; that is why there's
misunderstanding.
check?
:-]......-j
Dave Hayman
> cool. and the wind has "personal reponsibility" ?
No. Sigh. I already said that pr doesn't apply to non-sentients. By
saying it is the "doer" here I mean just that it's the subject of the
sentence. In my country, English is used like this a lot.
> um...dave.....another thing. you seem pretty keen to believe that i want
> to insult you.
> i don't.
This must be more of your weird concept of "personal responsibility". If
I were the only person you'd irritated, I might worry about this.
> as yr not really interested in the questions that i am (which is what it
> comes to) is there a whole lot of point in the conversation? i mean, you
> haven't asked the questions i'm grappling with; that is why there's
> misunderstanding.
>
> check?
Check that that is what it looks like from *your* point of view. You
haven't answered my questions either. But you're probably right about
the pointlessness of continuing this.
Jeremy Dixon
"New Tolpuddle Anarchist" at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Dave Hayman wrote:
> Jeremy Dixon wrote:
>
> > cool. and the wind has "personal reponsibility" ?
>
> No. Sigh. I already said that pr doesn't apply to non-sentients. By
and sigh to you. the difference in principle between sentients and
non-sentients is exactly whats at issue. in general the difference is just
one of complexity, not of fundamnetal nature. there is no distinction in
principle between mind and matter. this is 101 dave, is it really new to
you.
read blake's marriage of heaven and hell. it'd be good for you.
>
> > um...dave.....another thing. you seem pretty keen to believe that i want
> > to insult you.
> > i don't.
>
> This must be more of your weird concept of "personal responsibility". If
> I were the only person you'd irritated, I might worry about this.
insult is one thing, irritation is another. there is a type of person who
is always irritated by things which they don't understand or which they
don't agree with. if i was trying to insult you i might tell you what type
of person that is.
>
> > as yr not really interested in the questions that i am (which is what it
> > comes to) is there a whole lot of point in the conversation? i mean, you
> > haven't asked the questions i'm grappling with; that is why there's
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > check?
>
> Check that that is what it looks like from *your* point of view. You
> haven't answered my questions either. But you're probably right about
> the pointlessness of continuing this.
>
nah nah, you haven't *asked* the questions i'm trying to deal with. or
maybe you have and don't like the answers, i dunno.
and nor do i care much, life is short
-j
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>and sigh to you. the difference in principle between sentients and
>non-sentients is exactly whats at issue. in general the difference is just
>one of complexity, not of fundamnetal nature. there is no distinction in
>principle between mind and matter. this is 101 dave, is it really new to
>you.
>
Wait, you're arguing that because self-awareness is of mechanical origin,
that it isn't fundamentally different from non self-awareness? And that
this is some sort of basic truth? Bloody hell, I knew I wasn't a genius,
but I didn't realize that I was so dim. Wait, so let me see if I
understand now, the difference between me and say my keyboard is primarily
one of mechanical articulation, and to kill me is fundamentally no
different than to smash the keyboard, yeah? Or is it not when I'm being
acted upon but when I'm acting (or acted through as you say) that we're the
same. So, if I beat my neighbor to death with my computer keyboard at 5:30
am because his car alarm goes off when the wind blows, then I'm no more
responsible for over-reacting than the keyboard is for inflicting the
mortal blow? Good, can I use you for expert testimony at the trial? Or do
we discover in ?102 that while we have no personal responsibility for our
actions, we have to act as though we did?
baffled,
Scott
perhaps a few backflips off the train station platform would clear things
up for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hard Luck S.C.
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/hardluck/index.html
Piston Ported Vespas:
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/piston-ported.html
words
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/words.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Dixon
"New Tolpuddle Anarchist" at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Sandi & Scott Spaeth wrote:
>
> Wait, you're arguing that because self-awareness is of mechanical origin,
> that it isn't fundamentally different from non self-awareness? And that
> this is some sort of basic truth?
Thing is Scott, you do rather tend to expostulate and say in effect "this
argument makes me very upset" rather than advance yr own argument. as
bakunin put it in his letter to mazzini , to paraphrase as i don't carry
the text with me y'understand, "we [ie we radical materialists] have never
known this 'matter' you speak of anymore than we know this 'mind' (or
'spirit'); *there is only one world stuff* ".
There is only one world stuff. Dualism is the grin on the Cheshire cat of
(the dominant form of) christianity. There is no scientific basis for
dualism, Properly speaking no religious basis for it either, but the
fascinating thing is how people who claim to be emancipated from religious
mystifications still continue to believe (as shown by the assumptions
they operate on) , that 'man has a body distinct from his soul'.
A good example is so called atheists who get upset at the suggestion that
personality might be in part inherited. In their hearts they still
believe, apparently, that a little soul slips into the flesh at birth....
You don't have to believe that "all is matter" scott. you can believe "all
is mind". It comes to the same thing. There is only one world stuff, we
call it "mind" at a certain level of complexity.
> Bloody hell, I knew I wasn't a genius,
;-) Don't be so hard on yrself.......
> but I didn't realize that I was so dim. Wait, so let me see if I
> understand now, the difference between me and say my keyboard is primarily
> one of mechanical articulation, and to kill me is fundamentally no
> different than to smash the keyboard, yeah?
To smash a Ming vase is fumdamnetally no different than to smash an empty
vegemite jar in that they are both "matter". But there are differences in
another sense. And more so in the example you supply. Obviously.
Or is it not when I'm being
> acted upon but when I'm acting (or acted through as you say) that we're the
> same. So, if I beat my neighbor to death with my computer keyboard at 5:30
> am because his car alarm goes off when the wind blows, then I'm no more
> responsible for over-reacting than the keyboard is for inflicting the
> mortal blow? Good, can I use you for expert testimony at the trial? Or do
> we discover in ?102 that while we have no personal responsibility for our
> actions, we have to act as though we did?
Well Scott, I reckon you've got about as much out of talking to me about
this as yr gunna right now.
Since yr "baffled" still; maybe I could presume to suggest you read some
Gurdjieff. Or some Blake, or some Smullyan even.
regards
-jeremy
Jeremy Dixon
OK, Scott I've been thinking as i do off and on. Another way to approach
the whole subject, which you may find more, um, congenial, is this. From
yr acquaintance with Hippy Physics you'll be aware of arguments that time
is in a sense illusory. (Any good orthodox christian knows this too "God
does not have to wait for moments to be doled out in sequence but sees the
whole of history in one piece" as CS Lewis says somewhere, Mere
Christianity I think. He goes on to point out some of the logical
consequences of this, ).
OK? The well known fictional treatment of this perception is Vonnegut's
"Slaughterhouse 5" The best we can imagine it is the world, the universe
is a single extremely complex object, including all that has happened and
all that will happen. Past present and future are *of a piece*. Parts of
one complex *object*. When we watch a film we see it in sequence, Jack
Nicholson gets his nose cut "because" Milos Forman was "personally
responsible" for slashing him. But in fact all scenes are on one cpiece of
film.....if you say "but the world isn't on film" then you've missed the
point again......
I've made an effort here Scott; to explain my point in terms of yr
interests, seeing as how you seem to be concerned. Now you make an effort,
huh?
-jeremy
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Sandi & Scott Spaeth wrote:
>
> >
> > Wait, you're arguing that because self-awareness is of mechanical origin,
> > that it isn't fundamentally different from non self-awareness? And that
> > this is some sort of basic truth?
>
> Thing is Scott, you do rather tend to expostulate and say in effect "this
> argument makes me very upset" rather than advance yr own argument. as
> bakunin put it in his letter to mazzini , to paraphrase as i don't carry
[etc etc...]
Jeremy Dixon
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Jeremy Dixon wrote:
>
> When we watch a film we see it in sequence, Jack
> Nicholson gets his nose cut "because" Milos Forman was "personally
> responsible" for slashing him. But in fact all scenes are on one cpiece of
> film.....if you say "but the world isn't on film" then you've missed the
> point again......
Well as a list person has been kind enough to point out to me; this was
not Milos Forman at all, but of course Roman Polanski.
In "Chinatown". Were there any better thriller-type movies ever made than
Chinatown and Seven Samurai incidentally? Not being a huge movie buff its
possible that something slipped by me, but its hard to imagine.
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>
>Thing is Scott, you do rather tend to expostulate and say in effect "this
>argument makes me very upset" rather than advance yr own argument.
Actually I had hoped that putting what I percieved to be your argument in
simpler language and by using examples I could demonstrate just how absurd
it seemed to me (hence my wonderfully witty Dada reference in my last post
which I'm still quite pleased with).
as
>bakunin put it in his letter to mazzini , to paraphrase as i don't carry
>the text with me y'understand, "we [ie we radical materialists] have never
>known this 'matter' you speak of anymore than we know this 'mind' (or
>'spirit'); *there is only one world stuff* ".
>
And of course, that settles it.
but the
>fascinating thing is how people who claim to be emancipated from religious
>mystifications still continue to believe (as shown by the assumptions
>they operate on) , that 'man has a body distinct from his soul'.
Dunno about that, but I do claim that there is a significant qualitative
difference between thinking and not thinking, between being self aware and
non self aware, between living organisms and non living organisms.
Something is present in one and missing in the other, and I don't need an
everlasting gobstopper of a soul to exist for that, but rather I freely
admit that the mind is a result of the physical properties of the brain.
In that sense, there is indeed a duality, as the brain exists whether there
are electrical currents running through it or not, but the mind only exists
as an absolutely specific set of currents within that brain. And that
mind, through the process of thinking, can alter that set of currents
without constant external stimuli.
>
>To smash a Ming vase is fumdamnetally no different than to smash an empty
>vegemite jar in that they are both "matter".
agreed.
But there are differences in
>another sense. And more so in the example you supply. Obviously.
>
But only because thinking makes it so. We as humans often choose to value
the unique, that which has never come before and will not be repeated.
Which is why we both see differences between both objects in your example
and in mine.
cheers,
Scott
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>
>OK, Scott I've been thinking as i do off and on. Another way to approach
>the whole subject, which you may find more, um, congenial, is this. From
>yr acquaintance with Hippy Physics you'll be aware of arguments that time
>is in a sense illusory.
Sorry I gave you the impression that I was under the spell of a man named
Capra, but while I'm fond of 'It's a Wonderful Life', I wasn't that
impressed with the 'Tao of Physics'. And that said, I think the arrow of
time has been pretty much established for all things material.
<snipped examples that depended on my agreeing with the 'time is illusory
argument>
So here's the crux. You don't yet have solid scientific proof for your
opinion, nor do I for mine. So we have opinions, which is fine, but the
next question is how do our assumptions about reality lead us to act?
Personal responsibility says that no matter how lousy your circumstances
are, you still have to do the right thing (the task being to decide what
the right thing is), while determinism says what? Obviously I've
understood from the very beginning the gist of what you keep repeating, but
I'm still stumped as to where you're planning to go with it. People
usually choose paths that they think will take them somewhere (be it
specific or general), where is it you're trying to get to?
>
>I've made an effort here Scott; to explain my point in terms of yr
>interests, seeing as how you seem to be concerned. Now you make an effort,
>huh?
>
Make an effort? I've done my best to translate the gibberish (as it has
seemed to me) you write into something comprehensible and then respond to
it, and I haven't made an effort? Have you considered that maybe instead
of being on a higher plane that you have been on the wrong track so long
that you're looking for the Sydney Opera House while in Perth?
danceswithcarp
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Jeremy Dixon wrote:
> expostulate
First we kill the intellectuals and people who use big wirdz. Then we
move on those who wear glasses. Next come those who've been to a
doctor...
carpol pot
keri malone
sung to the tune of "lawyers,guns,&money"
somehow the first line just fit(nevrmind)
keri
First we kill the intellectuals and people who use big wirdz. Then we
move on those who wear glasses. Next come those who've been to a
doctor...
carpol pot
Your flags black in the wind,black for
our sorrow,
red for our blood-Makhnovchtchina
Dave Hayman
faith that's right for *you*, Jer. But where did you get the idea that
everyone has to agree with you on this? Are you familiar with the term
"arrogance"?
Jeremy Dixon wrote:
[in response to Spaeth]
"we [ie we radical materialists] have never
> known this 'matter' you speak of anymore than we know this 'mind' (or
> 'spirit'); *there is only one world stuff* ".
>
> There is only one world stuff. Dualism is the grin on the Cheshire cat of
> (the dominant form of) christianity. There is no scientific basis for
> dualism, Properly speaking no religious basis for it either, but the
> fascinating thing is how people who claim to be emancipated from religious
> mystifications still continue to believe (as shown by the assumptions
> they operate on) , that 'man has a body distinct from his soul'.
I can't agree. I am not making the assumption that a "soul" exists. I am
making the assumption that "free will" exists. At the point where Jeremy
says, if I understand him at all, that the individual is an imaginary
construct that cannot have free will, I say
1) You can't prove that and 1a) assuming that it has been proven
impresses me only with your arrogance and
2) "Free will" is an essential part of this imaginary construct which
not even Jeremy can remove without the collapse of civilization, as an
arch after its keystone has been removed.
>
> > but I didn't realize that I was so dim. Wait, so let me see if I
> > understand now, the difference between me and say my keyboard is primarily
> > one of mechanical articulation, and to kill me is fundamentally no
> > different than to smash the keyboard, yeah?
>
> To smash a Ming vase is fumdamnetally no different than to smash an empty
> vegemite jar in that they are both "matter". But there are differences in
> another sense. And more so in the example you supply. Obviously.
And Jeremy senses different identities than many of the rest of us.
[Dixon in response to Hayman]
> and sigh to you. the difference in principle between sentients and
> non-sentients is exactly whats at issue. in general the difference is just
> one of complexity, not of fundamnetal nature. there is no distinction in
> principle between mind and matter. this is 101 dave, is it really new to
> you.
>
> read blake's marriage of heaven and hell. it'd be good for you.
Jeremy doesn't write as if "the difference in principle between
sentients and
non-sentients is exactly whats at issue"; he writes as if its been
decided in his favor.
Not to forsake this argument, what if we accept this monism? Does it
cancel any possibility of personal responsibility? Not that I see, nor
have I seen Jeremy give an argument to this effect, tho he writes as if
there is a conclusive argument which is as well-known as Monica and OJ
together (don't piss him off, Monica!).
Even if all our actions are determined, we do not know how to predict
them except in very broad strokes. Therefore, from the limited,
time-bound human point of view, pers. resp. can make good sense.
Numerous other considerations re human experience confirm this. Western
civilization is based on it. All our laws and institutions and
authorities are predicated on the assumption of persl resp. Someday a
tremendous (non-anarchist) revolution may change that, but it hasn't
happened yet, Jer. I don't watch tv news but I'm sure I would know if
the people and powers had given up on one of their core assumptions.
And y'know, I *have* read Blake's "Marriage". It's beautiful and scary
and profound, perhaps the best prose poem in the language. It does not,
however, overrule every other authority in our "civilization". I don't
think even P.B. Shelley would've gone that far.
> OK? The well known fictional treatment of this perception is Vonnegut's
> "Slaughterhouse 5" The best we can imagine it is the world, the universe
> is a single extremely complex object, including all that has happened and
> all that will happen. Past present and future are *of a piece*. Parts of
> one complex *object*. When we watch a film we see it in sequence, Jack
> Nicholson gets his nose cut "because" Milos Forman was "personally
> responsible" for slashing him. But in fact all scenes are on one cpiece of
> film.....if you say "but the world isn't on film" then you've missed the
> point again......
>
Apparently Vonnegut described something similar to Blake's idea of
eternity, as sketched above. But again, we have no reliable access to
this viewpoint which sees time as a line rather than a point. We can
only imagine the past and future. In our limited viewpoints, we *must*
make the assumption of personal responsibility, or nothing resembling
our current or historical society is possible. Scott and I are baffled
by Jeremy's ability to ignore this fundamental point, and assume that
his peculiar assumption is a global standard.
> Further, "choice" and "moral responsibility" are linked
> concepts. You can't have moral responsibility without choice.
Agreed.
> So unless you invent some entity, such as a soul,
> and simply attribute to it all the qualities (like ability to choose) that
> you want to attribute to people, then you are stuck with cause-and-effect
> which excludes choice.
Not agreed, because as stated above, no human being is able to analyze
more than a tiny fraction of the cause-and-effect going on all around us
all the time. And we're often drastically wrong about what little we do
analyze. Therefore the assumption of pers. resp. can and must stand. The
exclusion of choice might happen on some higher, metaphysical plane, but
it ain't happenin' down here on the ground where we live.
le...@luff.latrobe.edu.au
>
> >
> as
> >bakunin put it in his letter to mazzini , to paraphrase as i don't carry
> >the text with me y'understand, "we [ie we radical materialists] have never
> >known this 'matter' you speak of anymore than we know this 'mind' (or
> >'spirit'); *there is only one world stuff* ".
> >
>
> And of course, that settles it.
No, of course that doesn't settle it. The point is just that there is
nothing "new" about what I've been saying. You attribute to me an
originality of thought to which I cannot claim.
Furthermore, radical materialist arguments were crucial to the genesis
of Anarchism. I've noticed on this list before that liberal conceptions
of freedom are taken for granted (and the liberal conception is in turn
based on dualist assumptions). Anarchism was at its modern beginning
based on a *rejection* of the liberal understanding of freedom.
So......you may well reject that basis. Of course. But it might be an
idea to be aware of it. You may find that if you reject the floor then
the roof will fall down.
>
> but the
> >fascinating thing is how people who claim to be emancipated from religious
> >mystifications still continue to believe (as shown by the assumptions
> >they operate on) , that 'man has a body distinct from his soul'.
>
> Dunno about that, but I do claim that there is a significant qualitative
> difference between thinking and not thinking, between being self aware and
> non self aware, between living organisms and non living organisms.
> Something is present in one and missing in the other, and I don't need an
> everlasting gobstopper of a soul to exist for that, but rather I freely
> admit that the mind is a result of the physical properties of the brain.
Oddly enough, that is more than I would admit. You might as well say
that the physical properties of the brain are a result of the
mind........but anyway.
> >
> >To smash a Ming vase is fumdamnetally no different than to smash an empty
> >vegemite jar in that they are both "matter".
>
> agreed.
>
> But there are differences in
> >another sense. And more so in the example you supply. Obviously.
> >
>
> But only because thinking makes it so. We as humans often choose to value
> the unique, that which has never come before and will not be repeated.
> Which is why we both see differences between both objects in your example
> and in mine.
>
Arguably only thinking makes the sun rise. So this is not particularly
fruitful line of argument....anyway I see you have another post.......
> cheers,
> Scott
Cheers to be sure. I'm half drunk right now, when i've finished with my
mail my plan is to complete the job. Just thought I'd share that with
you.....
-jeremy
le...@luff.latrobe.edu.au
and I seem to ahve accidentally deleted it. What a waste.
Anyway......point form.
Dualism v Monism. Occam's Razor applies. Of course yr free to reject
Occam's Razor, don't let anyione tell you different.
The consequences of my 'theory" is that there is less temptation to
hatred oppression and murder; whatever fancy names they dress themselves
up with. No place for disguising one's lust for cruelty and vengeance
under names like "punisment". And so on. As I've said in virtually every
post.
If yr interested re-read them. We're not getting any further.
Best regards, Scott, I like Capra too,
-jeremy
> http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/words.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------
le...@luff.latrobe.edu.au
repetitive a little more will make no difference........
Sandi & Scott Spaeth wrote:
>
> Sorry I gave you the impression that I was under the spell of a man named
> Capra, but while I'm fond of 'It's a Wonderful Life', I wasn't that
> impressed with the 'Tao of Physics'. And that said, I think the arrow of
> time has been pretty much established for all things material.
Gee, didja know that some sub-atomic particles appear to go *backwards*
in time? I thought you were relying on quantum physics for yr free will
argument.......Anyway I prefer the movie making Capra too. Though I
think there is more in "Meet John Doe" than "Its a Wondeful Life",
though the latter is admittedly slicker.
Dunno about the arrow of time though. Remember the Singularity (known to
various pagans as the World Egg) is by hypothesis outside of time.......
>
> So here's the crux. You don't yet have solid scientific proof for your
> opinion, nor do I for mine.
True, but by Occam's Razor one should not multiply unnecessary causes.
So I think the dualists bear the onus of proof. Of course you may reject
Occam's Razor too, but it has seemed to work fairly well over the
centuries.
?
> Personal responsibility says that no matter how lousy your circumstances
> are, you still have to do the right thing (the task being to decide what
> the right thing is), while determinism says what? Obviously I've
> understood from the very beginning the gist of what you keep repeating, but
> I'm still stumped as to where you're planning to go with it. People
> usually choose paths that they think will take them somewhere (be it
> specific or general), where is it you're trying to get to?
>
This is the difficulty Scott, these very comments suggest that you
haven't understood. This discussion began in the question of what
attitude anarchists should take to bad people like cops etc. My point
was, and is, and has been repeated continually over and again, that
"personal responsibility" in this sense is just an excuse for hatred and
such like negative emotions.
I know in yankee land yr far gone in "personal responsibility"
psychosis. That's why you have the highest execution rate in the english
speaking world, by far, and I think one of the highest in the world
altogether. Iran or somewhere might be higher. Do you (collectively, I'm
sure you personally oppose such things) still put 15 year old kids in
the electric chair? If not, it hasn't been long. "Personal
responsibility" again. New Zealand has established a no-fault accident
scheme which looks after all people with injuries no matter whose fault
it was. Some problems recently with all this economic rationalism
nonsense but basically ask a Kiwi if they want to go back to fault based
tortious liability as the basis for compensation. Idealogues worry about
the abdication of "personal responsibility" involved. If people die of
AIDS, or starvation, its their 'personal responsibility' isn't that
right?. No need to do nothing. When Hitler killed off the German Jews,
well.....they were unpoopular y'know and they had to take "personal
responsiblity" for that..........
If you you re-read my posts you'll see I have no problem with people who
choose to claim "personal responsibility" for their own actions. (Thats
one thing that Stirner's egoism is about, and I like Stirner) As I said,
if we pretend to persoanl responsibility then this might be a first step
from escaping from the grosser forms of cause-and-effect and becoming
part of patterns which *from where we are now* woulkd look like free
will.
But "personal responsibility", even when it starts innocently, turns
over and again into an excuse for engaging in negative emotions about
other people. (Maybe calling them "righteous indignation" or whatever.)
It is the language of murder and oppression.
So what I "do" with my attitude to personal responsibility is to
remember it when I'm tempted to hate someone.
> Have you considered that maybe instead
> of being on a higher plane that you have been on the wrong track so long
> that you're looking for the Sydney Opera House while in Perth?
>
It isn't in Perth? I'm not a travelled man.
I don't claim to be on a higher plane Scott. I'm trying to discuss a
matter of importance.
-jeremy
Jeremy Dixon
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Dave Hayman wrote:
> OK, so Jeremy's a strict monist. Congrats on finding a metaphysical
> faith that's right for *you*, Jer. But where did you get the idea that
> everyone has to agree with you on this? Are you familiar with the term
> "arrogance"?
Um.......I guess I must be pretty arrogant to disagree with someone like
you Dave [bats eyelids]
> I can't agree. I am not making the assumption that a "soul" exists. I am
> making the assumption that "free will" exists. At the point where Jeremy
> says, if I understand him at all, that the individual is an imaginary
> construct that cannot have free will, I say
> 1) You can't prove that and 1a) assuming that it has been proven
> impresses me only with your arrogance and
> 2) "Free will" is an essential part of this imaginary construct which
> not even Jeremy can remove without the collapse of civilization, as an
> arch after its keystone has been removed.
This reminds me of "arguments" for the existence of God.
Lets see:
1) You can't prove he doesn't exist and 1a) assuming nvertheless that he
doesn't is sign of sinful pride (lets get the stake and faggots ready) and
2) if people are allowed to around saying he doesn't exist civilization
will collapse (anyone got a match?)
Yep, thought so, the parallelism is pretty complete. Ah, the good ole
days, eh Dave?
What is the locus of "free will" if a soul distinct from the body doesn't
exist? The body?
>
>
> And Jeremy senses different identities than many of the rest of us.
For someone so stuck on personal responsibility, Dave, yr pretty keen to
talk about "us". (That's an irony, for them without irony software)
>
>
> Even if all our actions are determined, we do not know how to predict
> them except in very broad strokes. Therefore, from the limited,
> time-bound human point of view, pers. resp. can make good sense.
> Numerous other considerations re human experience confirm this. Western
> civilization is based on it. All our laws and institutions and
> authorities are predicated on the assumption of persl resp. Someday a
> tremendous (non-anarchist) revolution may change that, but it hasn't
> happened yet, Jer. I don't watch tv news but I'm sure I would know if
> the people and powers had given up on one of their core assumptions.
Gee dave, can you think any other arguments that might be 'proved' along
these lines? Don't think too hard.........
>
> And y'know, I *have* read Blake's "Marriage". It's beautiful and scary
> and profound, perhaps the best prose poem in the language. It does not,
> however, overrule every other authority in our "civilization". I don't
> think even P.B. Shelley would've gone that far.
Nah....But the point is that "monist" ideas are expressed there as
eloquently as they ever have been, they're not new.
Nor do they amount (as I think Sam Taylor implied in his otheriwse
sensible post) to "scientific fundamentalism". Which Blake, you will
recall Dave, unforgettably nails as "single vision and Newton's Sleep".
Which is unfair to Newton who was a practising alchemist, but anyway..
>
>
>
snip snip snip............
> all the time. And we're often drastically wrong about what little we do
> analyze. Therefore the assumption of pers. resp. can and must stand. The
> exclusion of choice might happen on some higher, metaphysical plane, but
> it ain't happenin' down here on the ground where we live.
>
I haven't repeated all yr argument. But there really is little or nothing
to back up that confident "therefore".
If you'd taken a less hostile attitude, the discussion might have been
more fruitful.
-jeremy
danceswithcarp
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 le...@luff.latrobe.edu.au wrote:
> Best regards, Scott, I like Capra too,
Well, carpa loves you too.
(but you spelt it worng)
carpa
Shawn P. Wilbur
It seems to me that there are (at least) two elements to materialism: 1) a
critique of metaphysics, and 2) an argument about practice (or "science").
The first starts by rejecting various dualisms, among them mind-body, in
favor of "one world stuff." "Objects" (and causal relationships among
them) are reductions. The "thing in itself" is pretty well banished.
Fair enough.
But this "stuff" is hardly arranged homogeneously, and its arrangements
are constantly changing in a "lawful" manner ("causes" and "effects"
being what we create when we abstract particular local arrangements from
the whole.)
In terms of practice, "the test of truth is existence." But by the time
we're talking about "truth," "practice," and "ex-istence" then we're
already deep in the soup - materialism is inescapably a "human (all too
human) science." If consciousness isn't a matter of "clean and proper"
egos, or souls, neither is it nothing, and thought is just as "real" as
any other arrangement of that "stuff."
So, if we don't want to get "mystical" about "the self," neither do we
want to the particular - and peculiar - kind of nexus of forces that it
represents. Nor, i think, do we want to rule out "choice" so quickly -
though it would be best (precisely for "us") to know better what kind of
reality it has.
Folks have tried to cut through the basic philosophical dualisms in a
variety of ways. Bergson, apart from the stuff about "lived time," was
concerned with the human being as a machine for introducing an interval
of indetermination into the world. (At one point, he was concerned with
things as simple and concrete at the length of the nerve net within
particular organisms. [Note: feel free to place ontologically unsound
"objects" "under erasure" if you're concerned about the purity of levels
of discourse. Science always works by reduction, possibly because that's
the only way thought works.])
Paul Carus, while maintaining a strong determinism, makes space for "free
will" by making "will" the immanent "nature" of an object. We shouldn't
have any trouble translating this as something like "local tendency" in a
more rigorously materialist formulation. That "will" is then free when it
is allowed to develop according to its own lawful nature, and unfree
(Carus actually talks about "coercion" in this context) when other
tendencies prevent that development.
That sounds ok to me, but where we go from there depends of what sort of
"local tendency" we think answers to the name "human." The answer to that
is going to depend in large part on whether you think "choice" is a "real
illusion" or whether it marks, perhaps, the very tendency which makes a
particular arrangement of the world unfolding appear as "human."
One way or another, we have to make some sort of peace with the unknown.
Certain answers to the questions, which favor the philosophical/
metaphysical side of things, seem to lead towards a kind of quietism or
nihilism, or at least towards the point of view that makes a special
object out of "passions" which are seen as something like hubris, rather
than as the "world stuff" developing as it does (lawfully) in the little
local patterns that we are. It's easier for me to see how those answers
which favor questions of "practice" - and thus accept a position of
agency which may or may not be a "real illusion" - might lead to
anarchism, or any activism.
Perhaps "people" are tendencies that at least "think" they can harmonize
the conflict between tendencies, and anarchists those most committed to
what might ultimately be much less than windmill tilting...
So what about "personal responsibility"? It at least appears that
"humans" are particularly prone to a particular kind of relationship to
the whole of things, and to other tendencies, which creates within the
fabric of things the *idea of division*. Even if we don't take a
"voluntaristic" position on human psychology, it's hard to dismiss the
emergence of this particular idea, or to minimize its importance for the
very possibility of the kind of "thing" that we are. It may be more than
wordplay to think that responsibility has something to do with this
tendency of "ours" to "respond" to the world in ways which suggest
something like choice.
Marx faulted "all previous materialisms" for failing to count for
"sensuous human activity," or practice. "[T]he point is to change [the
world]," as the last of the Theses on Feuerbach reads. Dietzgen agrees
with Marx at least this far. I would be very surprised if Bakunin did not.
Again, according to Marx:
The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstance
and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of
other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that itis
men who change circumstances and that it is essential to educate
the educator himself.
It seems to me well within the bounds of *this* materialism to say that
"personal responsibility" (prior to any attribution of praise or blame) is
the becoming-human of human beings, that we are the kinds of patterns
within the whole that differentiate ourselves precisely by
acting-as-selves. That this is a situation "unjustifiable" by
philosophical interpretation is maybe just uninteresting - from whence,
other than the state, the commodity logics of capital, the more
authoritarian elements of religion, etc, comes this call for such absolute
justification?
fwiw,
-shawn
BTW, Jeremy, i think "the burdon of proof" is always on *any* attempt to
resolve the aporia once and for all.
Senex Rupicapra
time: here's the way it works. (a) y come in thru the front door,
and (z) y go out thru the back door. betwixt (a) and (z): (1)
y do some shit; (2) others do some shit; (3) some shit just happens.
during 1, 2, and 3 y're sposed to have a fun time. if y do *not* have
a fun time it's yr own freaking fault.
most o us do not know what happens ante (a) and post (z).
those o us who have more than half a brain dont give a fat rat's ass,
neither. they's too busy having a fun time. the end.
yrs truly,
old (simpleton) goat.
pain is inescapable;
suffering is optional.
邢 唷��
Shawn P. Wilbur wrote:
[excise a big old loogie]
Manfred Schmidtke
>So here's the crux. You don't yet have solid scientific proof for your
>opinion, nor do I for mine. So we have opinions, which is fine, but the
>next question is how do our assumptions about reality lead us to act?
>Personal responsibility says that no matter how lousy your circumstances
>are, you still have to do the right thing (the task being to decide what
>the right thing is), while determinism says what?
Determinism says that we should create a society where people are not so
pissed off that they do the wrong things.
MANi
Shawn P. Wilbur
But, hell, i'm having plenty of fun. And i figure you must be having *some
fun* with all this, or you would have just started excising my big old
loogies wholesale by now. ;)
-shawn
Senex Rupicapra
> Determinism says that we should create a society where people are not so
> pissed off that they do the wrong things.
yeah? well, goat sez that folk are about as pissed off
as they make up they minds to be. using 'society' as an excuse
for asshole behaviour (doing 'the wrong things') is disengenuous;
and anybody that *buys* it as an excuse is either a fool or a knave.
old goat.
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>Determinism says that we should create a society where people are not so
>pissed off that they do the wrong things.
>
Blue.
cheers,
scott
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Schmidtke
>Most if not all left-of-center ideologies could be interpreted in this
>way, so I don't think it's characteristic of determinism.
As I see it, determinism fits better to anarchist beliefs, while
self-responsibility encourages a strong government, i.e. people choose to
do evil things, therefore people *are* evil, therefore we need to oppress
the evil sides of humans...
This is just my opinion, I don't want to offend anyone here, but that's why
I believe in determinsim.
>Until we
>achieve this wonderful society, what should we about abominable behavior
>on the part of individuals? Just shrug our shoulders and say "It's not
>his fault, our awful society made him do it"?
If someone commits a crime and there is 1) a victim and 2) it is likely
that he does that crime again, then we should "punish" him, either lock him
away for the rest of his life or kill him or send him to a distant island.
Not because of some mystical, unproven self-responsibility, but simply
because he is a danger to society. The same reason why we don't let a wild
tiger run freely around in a city.
MANi
Dave Hayman
for a living. ;-)
Senex Rupicapra wrote:
>
> ok, now pay attention. i'm only gonna say this one more
> time: here's the way it works. (a) y come in thru the front door,
> and (z) y go out thru the back door. betwixt (a) and (z): (1)
> y do some shit; (2) others do some shit; (3) some shit just happens.
> during 1, 2, and 3 y're sposed to have a fun time. if y do *not* have
> a fun time it's yr own freaking fault.
> most o us do not know what happens ante (a) and post (z).
> those o us who have more than half a brain dont give a fat rat's ass,
> neither. they's too busy having a fun time. the end.
> yrs truly,
>
> old (simpleton) goat.
Dave Hayman
could that Jeremy was making an unwarranted assumption (that everyone in
the world should agree with his dismissal of personal responsibility),
and he continues to ignore the point, and to taunt and scold me for
objecting to his incredible position. I'll take responsibility for my
(rather mild) hostility, but not for failure of this dialog.
He has a valid point about pers. resp. often being used destructively,
but that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Senex Rupicapra
>
> It's because of people like you, Goat, that us philosophers have to work
> for a living. ;-)
well, i dont know about y, Dave, but the onliest
philosopher i have met that ever did much real work was
Eric Hoffer. >;=))~
old goat.
fear is a fire in the mind.
邢 唷��
Senex R. Rupicapra
> This makes me feel warm over (much as if someone was pissing on me....?)
> -j
>
can y do that on the internet? wouldnt y get
lectrocuted or so?
maljuno kapro.
try not to try too hard,
it's a lovely ride.
邢 唷��
Jeremy Dixon
playing but I hope it was worth yr time......
-j
"New Tolpuddle Anarchist" at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/
Jeremy Dixon
This makes me feel warm over (much as if someone was pissing on me....?)
-j
> carpa
>
>
Dave Hayman
seem to understand the authoritarian tactic of stressing guilt among the
weak and ignoring it in the powerful. Please be assured that this is
*NOT* what I mean by the phrase.
By "pr" I mean simply (oh, would that it were simple!) that mentally
competent human beings are assumed to have free will and may be called
to account for what that individual did, and not for what someone else
or some non-human force did. By restraining bad guys, as below, you
*are* assigning pers resp, or else it would be fine to imprison some
hapless punk for a deed committed by a powerful person.
Assigning resp. it often very difficult and no doubt even an anarchist
society would sometimes screw it up. But it couldn't survive w/o holding
indivs pr as a basic principle.
Wild tigers, BTW, are assumed *not* to have signed the social contract,
and are subject to imprisonment even without scratching anyone.
Manfred Schmidtke wrote:
>
> As I see it, determinism fits better to anarchist beliefs, while
> self-responsibility encourages a strong government, i.e. people choose to
> do evil things, therefore people *are* evil, therefore we need to oppress
> the evil sides of humans...
> This is just my opinion, I don't want to offend anyone here, but that's why
> I believe in determinsim.
>