HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:41:57 GMT

In article <Bu4PwB2w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy 
Speicher) writes:
> 
>P.S. I find Stephen Grossman to be a major pain, as do most of my
>Objectivist friends who have encountered him.  He makes Objectivist
>sounding noises, but any resemblance with his unfocused emotional
>ramblings and REASON, in the Objectivist sense, is purely coincidental.
> 
>0004920191@mcimail.com
>Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com

SG	The number of people who both claim I have little wisdom and also make 
no attempt to prove their claims is startling. I wonder what it means...? 
Fortunately, however, philosophy does not depend upon cultural enthusiasms but 
upon serious, systematic thought.
	And if Speicher cannot transcend my use of (very focused) emotions to 
lighten and illustrate philosophy then perhaps a therapist might help. Or she 
might note Peikoff's advice in _Obj. Communication_ to ease the audience's mind 
with bits of humor. etc.
	I could be rather dull and somber and ask Speicher to prove her claim 
but i fear it was not meant to be taken rationally in the first place. She 
feels bad. I understand. Philosophy requires rigor and persistence, mental 
states to which many respond with sneezing and itching. Perhaps knitting might 
be more suitable for Speicher (I couldn't help it. The Devil made me do it. I 
was mightily provoked. It's politically incorrect and I'm mortified. On the 
other hand, I'm metaphysically correct). 	
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought 
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought 
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:11:21 GMT



You've holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) said:

there are elementary particles.



I (William Tucker) say:

Oh, I must've missed it. What are they? There are primary 
components to matter, non divisable entities?



ps. As an aside to the others who responded with emotional 
    diatribes. It's often a lot easier to make fun of something
    that makes us uncomfortable, or provokes us to examine what 
    we believe than it is to understand it. Understanding takes 
    thought, an expending of energy. Most of what I've seen here
    is a kicking about of others thoughts, not much orginal stuff.
    Surprise me! ;-)


Wm T.

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:37:04 GMT

>>Still putting the screws to Ma Earth,
>>Erich Vandenloos

>Pretty Strong Stuff!! - not at all - nice to see you following the
>classical line.

>"Let's put Mother Nature on the rack, that she might reveal her treasures"
                                                                    Bacon

>Nice to see that you have so internalised the thoughts of your masters
>that you consider them your own, so imprinted on your physical being that
>it legitimates your emotions.

'Twas a joke, son. Although its nice to see that _your_ masters have done
such a good job that you don't even recognize having them. I at least
acknowledge my intellectual heritage (which, I am not ashamed to say, I
think is glorious and beautiful and good in a way which the likes of you
will never grasp).

As for the rest of your screed, if I could plough through it (ooops! 
ploughing is so aggressive and male!) I would formulate a more thorough
response, but this will have to do:

Nick insists:

>Now some more enlightened scientists, are coming to a greater conscious 
>realisation of this "Wholeness and the implicate order" and are beginning 
>to develop theories/methodologies that will     point the way to more
>coherent ideas in all fields.

Wrong! Which enlightened scientists are you referring to, Terrence McKenna
or Wilhelm Reich? Or maybe R.A. Wilson, high priest of cheap bourgeois self-
indulgence and penny-ante mysticism for the lumpen-intellectual classes?
That's about the only examples I can come up with, since most scientists
are too busy doing real work to sit around dropping acid and "feeling."

>This restoration of the objective value of subjectivity has consequences,
>one of which is the growing awareness of the totally irrational way we
>manage (or mismanage) the ecosphere - the position of brain (and body)
>dead technicians in our political/economic/military power structures will
>become increasingly intolerable.

I simply cannot fathom what you mean by "objective value of subjectivity,"
although the cadence of the phrase does have a certain idiot symmetry. More
to the point, why should one take issue with the irrational way we manage
the world if you've rejected rationality to begin with? It seems like any
irrational destruction going on would be much to your liking (at least
ideologically if not, say, aesthetically). I might add that I too would
like to root out "brain (and body)-dead technicians in our (blah blah)"
wherever they may be and replace them with live, vigorous technicians more
competent at suppressing people like you.

Desirous of putting screws to more than Ma Earth (do you need a smile to see
I'm kidding, Nick?),

Erich Vandenloos
joechip@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: "stan pikul" <stan.pikul@canrem.com>
Subject: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Reply-To: "stan pikul" <stan.pikul@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:26:58 EST

Re: Requests for books, and replies to it.

(Message I.D's <1993Jan1.4280.4181@dosgate>         (original message)
               <1993Jan1.180058.3507@guiness.idbsu.edu> (R. Holmes)
               <Bu4PwB2w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>        (B. Speicher)
               for those interested in such details)

I just wanted to say thanks to R. Holmes, B. Speicher, and anybody else
who has posted a reply which hasn't reached CRS yet.


The real irony of it all is that I originally sent the message as a
*private* message, and the software at this end *did* say that the
message was marked as RECIEVER ONLY. Learn something new every day,
I guess... :P

Thanks again,
Jeffrey Pikul (ACPS7204@RyeVm.Ryerson.ca)
Temporarily posting from stan.pikul@canrem.com
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:24:00 +0000


>I love that phrase. "Wrestling with phantasmal pigs" perfectly describes
>the experience of trying to interpret new age science. I wish I could >remember whic
h physicist to attribute this to (Fermi?), but "That`s 
ot >right. That's not even wrong" also describes the confusion of 
trying to >decode new age thinking.


The trouble that I have, is that no thought is considered to be 
worthe considering unless it has been published, and preferably years 
ago by someone that some other academic has made a career out of 
discussing:-)


The dilemma that anyone has who is trying to introduce new ideas is 
this :-)

           1/. Should he do the degree course, learn the jargon and the
           BS and end up with all the originality knocked out of him, and 
           become a teacher or computer scientist?

           2/. Should he read Ayn Rand or Bohm, and attempt to use some of           
 their less arcane concepts to make a point that Kant o
 Russell
          may have missed, and thereby be labeled irretrievably as a 
          'New Age' lunatic.

          3/. Write it all down and make a popular film about it.

          4/. Go back to masturbation in disgust.


I have a 'strong intuition' that those who espouse Occam, would do 
well to examine ALL the conceptual models of the universe - not just 
the mediaeval time/space/matter/determinism of Newton, or the 
Rational Forms of the greeks and latterly logicians.

That way we might just come up with some simpler and cleaner views of 
the universe, and ourselves.

It is right to be critical of sloppy thinking. That is a logicians 
pregogative. I think it is dangerous to refuse to consider 
alternative possibile models of the universe.
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 11:40:54 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <BzHIu7.5tH@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1992Dec22.041515.25460@fulcrum.oz.au>

You wrote:

>>The movie is based on the book "The Turning Point" by Fritjof Capra.
>>Let me tell you all... I will be RUSHING to the bookstore to buy
>>it first thing in the morning!

>Why not pick up something rational instead?  Perhaps Atlas Shrugged by
>Ayn Rand or a REAL physics book.

Oh dear. I was completely on your side until you mentioned Rand.


Response:

Choosing 'sides' is the mark of the mark.  Open wide.


Thyagi
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Date: 3 Jan 93 11:28:58 GMT
	<C09qx1.KEt@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Distribution: sci
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C09qx1.KEt@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
 (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

  >I wonder how you cam explain why so many math/science/engineering types
  >are attracted to Rand if her mathematical ideas were so aweful.  Presumably,
  >they would be the first to notice any problems, no?

  Did Rand have mathematical ideas? I don't think this can be quite what you
meant to say.

   >objectivists to understand and promote objectivism.  They are basically 
   >taking bits and pieces of objectivism and adding in their own various 
   >ideas (to yeild some kind of mongrel philosophy).

  In philosophy as a subject or pursuit, "mongrel philosophy" is the rule,
simply because one is interested in knowledge and understanding, and only
the religiously inclined believe that philosophical fundamentalism w.r.t.
the writings of this or that philosopher is the best way of arriving at
knowledge and understanding.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:52:00 +0000


> Do you, for example, know _anything_ at all about Buddhism? 


Nothing whatsoever Peter. How could I?

:-)
From: bi757@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ed Stutsman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Buddhism & Science
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:39:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I've read many a bunch of jibberish on this topic, and as a 
Buddhist, I think too many people are stretching things to make
a connection between Buddhiism & science, esp. physics.

The only connection I can see is that in research you are at
the boundaries of knowledge.  Buddhism deals with mind and /its/
boundaries.  At those points, descriptions use similar langauge.

That's it folks.....a similarity in phrasiology...only.

Capra, etc, stretch definitions for their own motives.

-- 
    \ GEnie   E.Stutsman
     \ CIS    76066,1204

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 12:58:20 GMT

In article <Bu4PwB2w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Betsy Speicher) writes:
  
  >So far, they have received _several_hundred_ orders.

  What conclusion do you draw from this? I'm not at all sure myself what it
tells us about philosophy in the US. How would the same people react to an
invitation to get free copies of the works of von Daniken?

   > Ayn Rand's _Atlas_
   >_Shrugged_ came in second only to _The_Bible_.

  This is appropriate enough in that conversion to Objectivism through
reading Atlas Shrugged is much like a religious conversion for many
young people. It doesn't tell us a great deal about Rand as a philosopher,
though.

   >P.S. I find Stephen Grossman to be a major pain, as do most of my
   >Objectivist friends who have encountered him.

  I think that what is chiefly wrong with Grossman is that he insufficiently
emphasizes the existence of existence. I've put this to him in no uncertain
terms, but he merely evades the issue.

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:15:15 GMT

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>The movie is based on the book "The Turning Point" by Fritjof Capra.
>>Let me tell you all... I will be RUSHING to the bookstore to buy
>>it first thing in the morning!

>Why not pick up something rational instead?  Perhaps Atlas Shrugged by
>Ayn Rand or a REAL physics book.

Oh dear. I was completely on your side until you mentioned Rand.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:56:46 GMT

In article <memo.834818@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In-Reply-To: <1992Dec21.172430.14371@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
>
>>The bootstrap hypothesis is dead; there are elementary particles.
>
>And the Earth Goes Round the Sun. (or is it that they all go round 
>the centre of gravity of the Universe, or is it that they follow a 
>straight line in a curved space time continuum - ah I just 
>remembered, due to a unified field renormalisation theory in fact 
>nothing goes round anything, as we have performed a Fourier transform 
>on the whole lot and everything is merely vibrating at its natural 
>frequency. Silly me!)
>
>Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?

How do you think science works if it does not refer to things as they
are?  (perhaps with some inaccuracies at any given time...)

>
>There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords 
>well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic 
>physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary 
>particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I 
>or the world we live in.

Go look in a bubble chamber some time.  Electrons are real.  They can
be counted and weighed.  They seem to be elementary.

>
>And I alwways took you for an educated man. Tsk Tsk.

I am.

>
>>Chaos has little to do with the other topics.
>
>Possibly not. No need to be so shirty about it. I know how family 
>christmasses can get you down though :-)

Happy Hanukah.



-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Yahoo!
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:17:52 GMT

	I have been officially permitted by the SPIRIT OF RAND to wish all 
serious philosophers a Happy New Year. Be sure to drink only an objectively 
proper amount, commit only an objective amount of foolish behavior in front of 
people you must face tomorrow, and make only objective promises about your 
reformed character in the new year. Think sober thoughts. Of course, 
subjectivists can never be certain that the new year will really arrive. "It's 
unnerved me dreadfully," says Barbara Stanwyck." On the other hand, only 
Objectivists recognize their right to be happy in the new year.

				YAHOO!
	
================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Summary: L'Ayns and T'igers and B'ears, oh my!
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:36:11 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <Bu4PwB2w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us
(Betsy Speicher) writes:

>Outside of the universities, in the "real world," Ayn Rand's influence
>is growing, too.  Last year the Library of Congress and the Book-of-
>the-Month Club commissioned a survey of "lifelong readers" and asked

The Keepers of American Kulture have acted!  I hope I am not alone
in seeing this note and its implications as indicative of the dumbing
of America that has oft been said, but not by me much noted ere this.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:46:27 GMT

In article <72140@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>I look forward to some serious philosophical arguments regarding Capra
>and his writings.  Until then it is only so much spouting and gnashing
>of teeth.  Entertaining for the first few screens, but largely childish
>when continued longer than this.  Substance!  Substance!
>
>
>Thyagi

But what if there is no substance?


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:42:31 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
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 <1992Dec23.233605.10674@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor) writes:

>>Someone posting anonymously from the Portal (presumably the one of horn)
>>writes:

>>Choosing 'sides' is the mark of the mark.  Open wide.

>Oh spare me. The mark of the mark is to believe whatever you're told
>by the carnival barker. Capra, for instance...

Well yes... Mordred Mogi Whatsis-shiva probably meant you were supposed to
grab your ankles first.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:34:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.4280.4181@dosgate> "stan pikul" <stan.pikul@canrem.com> writes:
>        On a somewhat more serious note, is there anybody out there in
>the philisophical (or any other) "community" who actually takes Ayn &
>co. seriously?  

Sure there are.  There are quite a few professional objectivist philosophers
(both in academia and out) out there and lots of other folks too.  If there
weren't, why would you see so many posters here?

>I've been looking...and looking...and looking... for
>good pooks on philosophy, economics, history, etc. that don't have a
>highly existentialist/postmodern/PC bent to them.  Do you have any
>suggestions in this regards? (Besides Ayn, of course...)

Well, I have read parts of George Reisman's new book on economics which
looks like it's going to be really great.  Do you get the Second Renaissance
Books catalog?

>        Has any Objectivist written a concise essay on what
>postmodernism is about?  Do the postmodernists know what postmodernism
>is about?

ccording to their own theories, they can't know anything about what they
are talking about.  Gary Hull recently published a speech called something
like "The Black Hole of Post-Modern Philosophy", which discusses the various
problems of neo-pragmatists and deconstructionists and why they are even
worse (if that's possible) than the analysts and existentialists.

>P. S. Do you know anything about a publication called the _Intellectual
>Activist_?

Yes, it's an objectivist publication which comes out every other month.
For a while, the publication schedule was intermittent at best, but now
it is under new management and much improved.  Do you need the address?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta