HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Roll Over Sappho
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:06:07 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: sharvy@reed.edu's message of 9 Jul 92 05:44:09 GMTLines: 17

In <1992Jul9.054409.1010@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu writes:

[...interesting & nearly convincing parody of lesbian scholarship...]

> Research on these matters is 
> scheduled to begin shortly, pending approval of my NEA grant.

Ha!  You gave yourself away here.  That would be an NEH grant, not an NEA
                                                    **^               **^
grant -- your programme is one of *humanities* not *arts* research.  However
the parody is still just as amusing.  The thought of Lynne Cheney of the NEH
approving such a grant proposal is as absurd as the thought of the
now-congressionally-constrained NEA doing so.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1498 rec.arts.books:13421 sci.classics:594 talk.politics.misc:36533 talk.politics.theory:3107
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,sci.classics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Pompous Ignorance (Re: The Writings of Socrates)
Keywords: pompous ignorance,enilges
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:23:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Jul29.143201.11874@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.185618.14266@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.151507.9098@Princeton.EDU>
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>EN:
>>>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>>>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
>>>teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  
>>
>>I interrupt this fascinating debate between my two favorite culture
>>mavens only to announce that the above pearl is hereby entering my
>>collection of exemplary samples of Edward G. Nilges' wit and wisdom.
>
>Mikhail, sweetie-pie, you promised to withdraw from interaction with me
>after I kicked your butt last fall.  I am quite aware, of course, that
>"the writings of Socrates" may be infelicitous unless we use Derrida's
>"writing" such that Socrates wrote-through Plato, and I am aware that it
>is lese-majesty to say of a Real Stud like Socrates that he soiled
>himself with writing.  But your pedantic little sniggering is even more
>infelicitous.  

	It is getting really hard to keep up with Mr. Nilges's postings
these days. In the interests of eliminating any confusion as to Ed's
professional instincts, I'm crossposting this to those subscribers on
talk.politics.misc and talk.politics.theory who haven't set up their 
kill files yet.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: fcaggian@rentec.com (Frank Caggiano)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Morality and "cultural relativism"
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:58:52 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <Brqu1x.J6z@acsu.buffalo.edu> v121kh43@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel R. Goupil) writes:

> Example:
>not all cultures agree with sharing, so is this a common moral value?  I 
>Dan Goupil
>SUNYAB Social Sciences  


Could you define sharing in this context and supply examples of cultures
which do not 'share'.

Thanks



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
	`The sensibility of man to trifles, and his insensibility
to great things, indicates a strange inversion.'
					Blaise Pascal

Frank Caggiano                      INTERNET: fcaggian@rentec.com  
Renaissance Technologies Corp.      UUCP: ..!uupsi!kepler1!fcaggian
100 North Country Rd.                    fax: (516) 245-5761
Sekauket, NY 11733                     voice: (516) 246-5550
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free will
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:08:27 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <denmckinnon.3.711816642@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
> The question you must ask you Nobby self is whether if we knew 
>every physical aspect of the human body, would we then be able to predict 
>human action.  Current Neurology suggests that we just might?  

No, and umm, no.

1. You can't observe enough about the human body according to current physics.
What I mean by this is that although a great deal of the mechanism of the
human body is classical, the justification of the continuum laws is actually
statistical. Fluctuations from the molecular level are observable in sensitive
systems. The idea that 'if we just knew the initial conditions' is completely
naive about the uncertain nature of the laws. This uncertainty is small, but
we can use Smale's example of nongenericity of Structural Stability, or the
Markus-Meyer result (if we insist on Hamiltonians) to show that this is not
just an exceptional rarity, but this may be an essential frustration for the
would be determinist.

2. I think current neurology is far more capable than in past, but I think you 
need to remember that in order to observe enough about the human to do a good
prediction, you will have to interact with a giant part of that human. In which
case will you be predicting or _determining_ the behavior? Niels Bohr, and 
probably many others have thought along these lines.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.125508.10715@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina) writes:
>From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
>Subject: Re: Free will
>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:55:08 GMT

>In article <1992Jul22.075422.27506@a.cs.okstate.edu>  
>onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>> From article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>, by  
>cash@convex.com (Peter Cash):
>> > In article <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu>  
>frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
>> > 
>> >>  I also don't see the conflict between physics and free will. Physics  
>> >>does not deal with any living or self-ordering system which is the  
>only  
>> >>thing that can have a free will.
>> > 
>> > Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
>> > discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it  
>is,
>> > and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free  
>will".
>> 
>>   I made a reply to Frisina's comment above, but I am not sure if it
>> made it out there.  In sum, the connection between physics and 
>> life-ordering systems is made quite strongly in several fields of
>> biology.  One will note that even the beginning biology text includes
>> a discussion of physics.

>   I still disagree that there is a conflict. The kind of demterminism you  
>need to destroy free will doesn't exist at all on the microscopic level or  
>in a macroscopic living system. Use whatever laws of physics or biology  
>you wish; you will havbe no idea what I will do next. You could apply  
>psychology, sociology, or any other socxial science but they arfe far from  
>deterministic. 
>    The physics in a biology text offers no determinism either. It  
>predicts nothing about the organism's action. Physics is still at peace  
>with free will.
>---
>Vince
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature file under construction...            Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free will
Date: 29 Jul 1992 01:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 3821@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP, tmkst6+@pitt.edu (Theodore M Kostek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.200956.13790@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>As I think about it, free will wasn't really exactly what I was asking.  
>A better (maybe :| )way to ask my question would be as follows: is 
>there something special about 'me' such that what I do is does not 
>necsessarily follow from a purely scientific, physical description of me
>and my surroundings.
>
>

You can back and forth on this forever. Read 10,000 philospohers,
meditate 10,000 hours, post 10,000 times, it all comes down to:
you will never really know. Under all the wonderful science there still could
be a demon in the machine, or this all could still be a dream of dreamer
dreaming, or religion might still give way to a new laplacian inspired
nightmare.

Posit the alternatives, deduce the possible worlds of each alternative,
choose which one you prefer, and live as though it were true.




Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: frightening ignorance
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:30:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa

In article <LEE.92Jul22154059@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>
>I think that codification follows hard on explication in any social
>matter, and that a large part of Western religion is the support and
>transmission of supposedly "moral" codes.  One might say that the
>

I'm not sure how one explicates a hard on (or if it is even necessary) but
cod-ification would precede it, not the other way around. Where did you
say you were posting from again?

Tom

******************************************************************************
 Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Ethics -- a quest
From: agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray)
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:46:47 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133



I'm new to this group, and to the subject matter in general (seems I've
got QUITE a lot of catching up to do...)

Anyhow, I just read another feeble attempt to prove the existence of God
(Spinoza), in my quest for a cogent discussion of ethics.  The work I
just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".

Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
on Judeo-Christian mythology?

Andrew Gray
agray@starconn.com
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 14:27:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc

In talk.philosophy.misc, tmkst6+@pitt.edu (Theodore M Kostek) writes:

> 
> I've been wondering how to reconcile free will with physics, and for
> that matter social/psychological forces as well.  IMHO, people are 
> largly the reasult of the forces acting on them from society.  Also,
> science seems to ready to explain everything, utlimately in terms of 
> physics.  I admittedly don't know much about quantum mechanics and modern
> physics, but does this mean that I am just a bunch of statistical
> accidents?  

Study chaos theory.  It may be that physics will be able to 
explain but not predict.  This may preserve free will.

doug
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: morality adn cultural rela
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:44:47 GMT

this is a test...I'm a Virgin in the internet network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature file under construction...            Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1503 alt.postmodern:2233
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: The Writings of Socrates (Re: Hate Speech Oka
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:27:24 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Keywords: pompous ignorance

In article <1992Jul29.144347.14643@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.185618.14266@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

EN:
>>>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>>>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
>>>teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  

MZ:
>>I interrupt this fascinating debate between my two favorite culture
>>mavens only to announce that the above pearl is hereby entering my
>>collection of exemplary samples of Edward G. Nilges' wit and wisdom.

EN:
>Mikhail, you are joining Henry Schaffer in my kill file.  You promised
>the net last fall, after being bested in debate with me, to refrain
>from dialog because you cannot control your abusive temper.  

Which debate was that, Mr Ed: the one where you claimed that logic
preserves falsehood as well as truth or sheer idiocy, or the one where
you called Israel a nation of madmen?

EN:
>							     You also
>have another note on this thread asking how you can carry a gun in
>Massachusetts and this leads me to believe that you are a dangerously
>angry person.

Indeed, Mr Ed, my faithful minions are even now hard at work mining
the section of a highway overpass you will cross tomorrow on your way
to work.  In fact, I have a secret to share with you: all your enemies
in the newsgroups you have been inundating with your noxious refuse
have chipped in to hire my organization to rub you out.

>"The writings of Socrates" is infelicitous, especially to pedants.  I am
>of course aware that Socrates did not "write" except in Derrida's sense
>and that Plato transcribed dialogues.  Your rage also has to do with the
>lese-majeste of having a Real Stud like Socrates being soiled with the
>implied association with writing.

Indeed, Mr Ed, I am glad you have decided to not go gently into that
good night.  By the way, I don't believe you have a kill file, as your
character obviously thrives on every public mention of your name.

>Good-by, Misha.  Vaya con dios.

Sorry, Mr Ed, you don't get off that easy.  Only a megalomaniac like
yourself could entertain the notion that anyone would waste his energy
on the effort required to expose your pretensions for your own
benefit.  The promise of ceasing your "dialog" is the best sort of
encouragement I could hope to receive.  Carry on; you amuse me.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
an archive of nilgesism is available for ftp access; 
inquire by email
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: `The Abolition of Work' by Bob Black (3 parts) posted to alt.activism
Keywords: work,play,slavery,wage-slavery,get-a-life,productivity,production,
	treadmill,grindstone
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:07:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

Followers of the
	"Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)"
thread in the pnw.general newsgroup, as well as readers of the other
newsgroups this post is cross-posted to will be interested in Bob Black's
essay, "The Abolition of Work" which I have posted in 3 parts to the
Usenet newsgroups

	alt.activism
	misc.activism.progressive
	text-files (local to eskimo)

You may also get a copy by e-mailing me.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:07:21 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: agray@StarConn.com's message of 27 Jul 92 05:46:47 GMTLines: 24

In <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> agray@StarConn.com writes:

> 
> Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
> on Judeo-Christian mythology?
> 
There are a number of quite good anthologies (which I'd recommend before diving
into more lengthy works from previous centuries).  VIRTUE AND VICE IN EVERYDAY
LIFE by Christina Hoff Sommers is quite good.  Another interesting (short,
non-textbook, despite its title) one is MORALITY:  AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS by
Bernard Williams (1972).  For a fairly rigorous course of self-study (good to
read with at least one other person so you can discuss them) try John Stuart
Mill, UTILITARIANISM followed by Kant GROUNDWORK OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
followed by Rawls, A THEORY OF JUSTICE.  Somewhere in there you could also read
Aristotle, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS and Nietzsche, GENEALOGY (sic) OF MORALS.  By the
time you've read those, you can apply to grad school.  A good new work is
Sabina Lovabond's REALISM & IMAGINATION IN ETHICS, though it is too technical
for a first encounter.  Somewhere in there you'll want to read Hume, too, but
Hume probably talks about God too much for your current taste.  Oh yeah, A.
MacIntyre, AFTER VIRTUE isn't bad either.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.postmodern
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: The Writings of Socrates (Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: pompous ignorance
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:43:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.185618.14266@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>EN:
>>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
>>teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  
>
>I interrupt this fascinating debate between my two favorite culture
>mavens only to announce that the above pearl is hereby entering my
>collection of exemplary samples of Edward G. Nilges' wit and wisdom.

Mikhail, you are joining Henry Schaffer in my kill file.  You promised
the net last fall, after being bested in debate with me, to refrain
from dialog because you cannot control your abusive temper.  You also
have another note on this thread asking how you can carry a gun in
Massachusetts and this leads me to believe that you are a dangerously
angry person.

"The writings of Socrates" is infelicitous, especially to pedants.  I am
of course aware that Socrates did not "write" except in Derrida's sense
and that Plato transcribed dialogues.  Your rage also has to do with the
lese-majeste of having a Real Stud like Socrates being soiled with the
implied association with writing.

Good-by, Misha.  Vaya con dios.


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: zharman@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Raven Zachary)
Subject: CYLINDER
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:55:40 GMT



                                   CYLINDER

               the society for the philosophy of tools and space


   We are an interdisciplinary and "multinational" organization, small but
growing, dedicated to thoughtful discussion about and research into issues
concerning tools and space.  Currently, we maintain a membership list and
circulate a short newslwetter.  But our future plans call for expansion - a
number of conferences and a journal are possible in the next few years.
Within the scope of our society, members have raised diverse and fascinating
issues for consideration, including but not limited to the following:

- Architectural theory and practice
- Media theory
- The role of equipment in Heidegger: the tool and truth in _Sein und Zeit_
- Bergson; Levinas and the concept of hypostasis
- Baudrillard & Virilio: speed, the simulacrum and "crystal revenge"
- Marx: from use- to exchange-value; the deterritorializating movement of
  capital and surplus-value
- Deleuze/Guattari: desiring machines, paranoid machines, miraculating
  machines, celibate machines
- The mechanics of the dreamwork in psycho-analysis
- Poetics of space a la Bachelard
- Figural and rhetorical aspects of the tool in literature; the delirious
  machines of Poe, Kafka, Ballard, and Borges
- bolo'o'bolo and other political theories of reterritorialization
- Transit technology and urban planning
- Infrastructure catastrophies: the Chicago freight tunnel flood
- The iconology of computers, especially the Macintosh
- A philosophy of toys
- The tool/toy of language and its (dys)function: the Zen koan, the joke

Now we want what you have to offer...
Membership is free.  Just send your name and address to be placed on our list.

                                   CYLINDER
                         c/o Graham Harman, secretary
                      Philosophy Dept., DePaul University
                                Chicago IL, USA
                                     60614


Cylinder is associated with the National Toolbelt Society: Marcel E. Yarnow and
Raven Zachary, executive co-directors.

                         
---
Cylinder inquiries are currently being accepted via email

zharman@uiowa.edu

Please do not post replies on USENET.  They will not be read.
---
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:13:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul22.075422.27506@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>From article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>, by cash@convex.com (Peter Cash):
...
>> Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
>> discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
>> and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".

>  I made a reply to Frisina's comment above, but I am not sure if it
>made it out there.  In sum, the connection between physics and 
>life-ordering systems is made quite strongly in several fields of
>biology.  One will note that even the beginning biology text includes
>a discussion of physics.

So, by implication, you think biology has some relevance to free will?
Interesting. What is it?
...

>  Apropos Cash's demand for a definition, we find a strong relevence
>here.  To establish what is meant by freewill, we first must reconstruct
>Being, establish Dasein's position within Being(ie, as in the care 

Nah. You just need to give me a couple of _examples_. Show me some cases of
"free will" and some cases of "unfree will", and characterize the
difference between them.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc