HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and myth
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:29:01 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 <1992Apr12.170451.12670@demon.co.uk> Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:

...
>        The most valuable thing one can do in connection with such
>        questions is to examine why one wants to ask them.

>Why do you say that? This is almost Zen-like. Is that what you mean?
>that asking questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
>direct attention to the mechanisms of language and the modelling
>process rather than to hands and clapping in general.

Paraphrased from (bad) memory, with much lost in translation:

There was once a beginning student of Zen who, wishing to show off his
wisdom and admonish his fellow students, posted the following note on the
door of the monastery:

	Polish brightly the mirror of the mind, that it may reflect
	more clearly.

Another more advanced student scratched this out, and wrote:

	There is no mirror, and no reflection. So what have you been doing
	with that rag?
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:50:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr6.160700.26824@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
(Robert Hooker) says:
>
>I am reminded of the work of Levi-Strauss,  who's work is far superior to
>Campbells.  Levi-Strauss saw myths as attempts by cultures to resolve
>difficult questions they are face in their intellectual lives.  (example
>escape me).
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's more to the human being than intellect.  The above puts Levi-
Strauss's work as a subset of Campbell's, which isn't the point you
intended to make.  Try again.

*----------------------------------------------------------------------*------
 Bob Funkhouser               | My views do not represent those of my employer
 bkf@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu |-----------------------------------------------
 Menlo Park, CA               | "An unlived life is not worth examining"
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:10:33 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 <1992Apr8.143852.27915@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>Golly, but with all this focus on the mystical mutterings of
>Ludwig W., and pronouncements of his such as

...quote from Holy Ludwig excised...

>I wonder if anyone might be interested in looking back at Carnap's
>"The Elimination of Metaphysics" which predates Ludwig the Obscure.
>(Or maybe even try Hume?  Nah!)  For those not of faint heart,
>"Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" is even better. 

I don't get it. You think Carnap is preferable to Wittgenstein? If so, why?
(Certainly, he's simpler.) What connections do you want to draw to Hume?
Come on, don't leave us wondering--let's talk about it!

> Of course you
>need to be aware that these types of papers are not presented in
>the Sesame Street cum shopping-list style that Wittgenstein adopted
>post-Tractatus.

I gather you're trying to be insulting here. Don't you think we've done our
home work? 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Summary: Philosophy is creative.  
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 APR 92 08:54:27    


In article <1992Apr10.012034.6574@samba.oit.unc.edu>, shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes...
>In article <92093.093303BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>My view is that philosophy is primarily an intellectual pursuit of truth
>>and so naturally, thinking is the key activity.  Philosophers are
>>thinkers.
>>
>By this, I assume you mean analytical, rational, 'left-brained' thinkers.
>I hate to think (or do I?) that we creative types never think at all?

Philosophers are thinkers, and philosophy is very clearly a highly
creative endeavor.   The same kind of motivation to create and express a whole
understanding is present in philosophy, in myth-making, and in most art.

>>...
>>Also, according to Campbell, myths are created by artists. A right
>>brain activity.  Philosophy would be left brain activty by comparison.
>>Philosophers discussing myths could be likened to art critics discussing
>>art.  Philosophers don't create myths, art critics don't create art.

I don't agree with this at all in general.  Mr. Campbell was apparently 
creating specialized definitions for rhetorical purposes.  Art criticism 
(what I consider worthwhile art criticism) is very definitely art.

>Remember that left- and right-brainedness (if it exists at all -- it

I think this specialization factor is probably greatly overdone when 
it is applied to entire fields, although it may have some use when 
applied to specific tasks.

> Most *truly* creative people I know exhibit signs of both
>left- and right-brained approaches to creation and problem solving.

And life is about creation !

>Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu

							todd
From: BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:38:55 GMT
 <92106.212236BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <1992Apr17.012613.3567@cs.yale.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr17.012613.3567@cs.yale.edu>, khoo-siau-cheng@CS.YALE.EDU
(Siau Cheng Khoo) says:
>
>In article <92106.212236BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.201512.7843@news.nd.edu>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu
>says:
>>>
>>> could I use my free will in such a way as to ensure that all future
>>>uses of my will will only be towards the good.
>>
>>For free will - trust yourself, believe in yourself, love yourself,
>>think for yourself, listen to yourself,  follow your inner urges,
>>do what nourishes you, what fulfills you, what serves your life, be in
>>harmony with your body, and know that you are not "it", but you are a
>>part of All.  The freedom in the term "free will" belongs to you.  It is
>>yours.  It is your birthright.  You are allowed to *live* it.
>>
>
>By doing so, you will taste the beauty of free will indeed. But, all
>these means are so self-centered, and the end result may not be in
>harmony with the world. Put it in another words, that free will you
>get is YOUR free will, it is bound by your own feeling and perception,
>and not really free.  However, if after you achieve this, you begin to
>-- trust not just yourself, believe in not just yourself, love not
>just yourself, think not just for yourself, listen to not just
>yourself, do what nourishes not just yourself, what fulfils not just
>yourself, what serves not just your life, then you may begin to be in
>harmony with the nature are become selfless. Then you ultimately get
>the solution to Brennan's question:
>
>   could I use my free will in such a way as to ensure that all future
>   uses of my will will only be towards the good?
>
>In fact, you get even more, you can be sure that "all future uses of
>my _FREE_ will will only be towards the good".
>
>Best regards,
>
>-- Siau Cheng Khoo

Good point.  I agree.  Free will should be aligned such that what
is good for your life is also good for the world and vise versa.
However, you may not truly know what is good for the world until
you have exercised your free will in combination with self-discovery
to the depth where you find resonances in your indigenous self and
the world, ie. in the harmonics of the internal and external worlds.
You certainly will not know what is good for your life until you
know who you are, the first of business.  IMHO.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Funkhouser               | My views do not represent those of my employer
 bkf@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu |-----------------------------------------------
 Menlo Park, CA               | "An unlived life is not worth examining"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:55:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr13.150034.647@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter
Cash) says:
>
>
>As a lifelong lover of mythical stories and folk tales, I find this notion
>that myth exists to "answer questions" to be one of the most overblown
>pieces of pseudo-intellectual humbug ever perpetrated. The world would be a
>much better place if Bill Moyers had been a sports commentator, and Joseph
>Campbell had found honest employment as an advertising writer.
>
You are obviously referring to the "Power of Myth" production in your
denigration of both Moyers and Campbell.  It also appears that you
didn't give the show any of your precious attention.  If you had, you
would have learned that Campbell said that he didn't think people
were seeking meaning in the myths (ie. questions answered), but that
people are seeking "the experience of being alive."  Thus the first
half of your (above) paragraph is based on error, either your error
of assumption, or your error of misinterpretation.  If you can clarify
you case, try again.

The second part of your (above) paragraph does not fit with my experience
AT ALL.  I thought the Moyers/Campbell show was the best thing I have
ever seen on TV.  And many, many, people I have the shared the tapes with
felt the same way.  You're in left field.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Funkhouser               | My views do not represent those of my employer
 bkf@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu |-----------------------------------------------
 Menlo Park, CA               | "An unlived life is not worth examining"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 3 Apr 92 18:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.180218.3388@news.eng.convex.com> Peter Cash writes:
>Since the only true and proper role of philosophy is the clarification of
>questions (to the point where these questions disappear), philosophy
>has--of course--nothing at all to do with myth.

Can you cite an example of philosophy where a question was clarified to the
point where it dissappeared? Aren't PhD's still argueing over whether 1 + 1 =2?
If you can I'm sure we can rip it to shreads here on s.p.meta .

Philosophy and Mythology both try to answer the difficult questions, the
questions that we may never know the answers to. Go read the Mahabhrata and
tell me it's not philosophical. And BTW, which came first, night or day? 8^)
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: Taoism
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:48:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.234136.18152@demon.co.uk> Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
>
> mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes..
>>        When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.
>
>I am not so sure about that.

Why not?  Perhaps "awe" means for you the awe of one person for
another, and the possibility of being lead by the nose by some
unscrupulous charismatic figure.  Is that why?

Maybe "awe" is meant by Lao-Tzu to be awe of nature, awe of god.  In
that case, it makes perfect sense to me.  As soon as we start to
think we are better than nature, there is disaster, for we forget that
we rely on nature for our survival.  City life shelters us from this
reality.

>
>How come we have forgotten all that stuff? It seems to make perfect
>sense to me.
>

Same here.

Alejo Hausner (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki)
Subject: Re: On Philosophy and Mythology, Beyond LogicalPositivism
Originator: stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:12:48 GMT

In article <10274@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

   OK, maybe some more definitions:

   Philosophy: love of wisdom, attempts to answer the great questions
     (through myths or direct dialog)

   Mythology: the study of stories that illustrate and aid in answering the 
     great questions. Western people ussually get hung up on this because
     we want to believe that everything is either true or false, (a left over
     from reductionism) when in reality there is a lot of ground in between.

   Perenial Philosophy: term coined by Aldous Huxley for the ancient
     mythologies, in particular Indian. (Mahabharata etc.)

   Religion: Eastern religions are very mythological and philosophical but
     western religions tend toward the pedantic. Religion seperates from
     mythology when people start believing that the myths are really true.
     Religion differs from philosophy when it becomes rigid and can't be
     questioned or changed or interpreted by the common folk. Religion
     could be called fundamentalist mythology, in other words a mythology
     becomes a religion when you believe the myths are no longer just stories
     but are actually TRUE.

This goes both ways. A religion becomes a mythology when you believe the
myths are no longer actually TRUE, but are just stories.

dave...

David J Stucki	   /\ ~~ /\  ~~	 /\  ~~	 /\  ~~	c/o Dept. Computer and 
537 Harley Dr. #6 /  \  /  \ 	/  \ 	/  \   	/   Information Science
Columbus, OH  43202   \/    \  /    \  /    \  /    2036 Neil Ave.
stucki@cis.ohio-state.edu ~  \/  ~~  \/	 ~~  \/	    Columbus, OH 43210

There is no place in science for ideas,
there is no place in epistemology for knowledge,
and there is no place in semantics for meanings.  -- W.V. Quine
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: ndarvish@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Amerindian Booklist Help!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 APR 92 21:15:37 GMT

        Hi, I am looking for some legitamate sources on Amerindian shamanism (esp. Plains Indians) that are at least 20 yesrs old, or that are too important to be ignored. Can someone suggest a few? Also i would like to start a
correspondance with any shamans out there who wouldn't mind teachming me a little of their path.
                        Thanks,
                                Bruin.
        (either ndarvish@ollie.clarku.edu or murder@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:51:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: inews.10464

In article <1992Apr13.150034.647@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>As a lifelong lover of mythical stories and folk tales, I find this notion
>that myth exists to "answer questions" to be one of the most overblown
>pieces of pseudo-intellectual humbug ever perpetrated.

So you are saying that the adventures of the great Zarathustra are just a fun 
little folk tale, ala Disney? It answered a lot of questions for me, especially 
the discussion of Zarathustra's ape.

I believe it was Nietzsche who said, the best things can not be said, the second
best can not be understood, that leaves symbolic language or myth as the best
form of communication when it comes to the difficult questions, like life
and death.

Alright, to borrow a question from Nietzsche:

What myth's do you live by? (What is your core philosophy?)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
From: mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: Rensselaer Mathematics Dept., Troy NY
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:51:36 GMT

I am struck by the extent to which this discussion resembles a myth.

Has western philosophy become merely history of philosophy?  Wittgenstein
and Hume might as well be mythic, IMHO.  And which concept needs defense
from the other in this debate?

Why no Foucault references?  Too confusing?

-- 
Todd McComb                             mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.1]
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and myth
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:44:36 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:

>The scholarly Confucius, the moral philosopher, spends years composing 
>aphorisms to circumscribe moral behaviour.

Did Confucius ever write anything?  I thought the Analects were simply a 
compilation of things Confucius said that his followers put together.  
That's the impression you get reading them, anyway.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de (MARC WACHOWITZ INFORMATIK)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and myth
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:34:42 GMT

In article <hr9t2fm@rpi.edu> mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes about
Tao, the Way that cannot be walked [another translation of the first line].
>        This appears as darkness.
>        Darkness within darkness.
>        The gate to all mystery.

> There may be philosophy in the moment;
> Only myths exist through time.

Existance through time is a myth,
eternity is in the moment.
The great Tao has no gate,
water being - flowing waves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz                               75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
   *   wonder everyday   *   nothing in particular   *   all is special   *
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:05:28 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>Some metaphysical questions seem to have a form that looks very much 
>like the form of an empirical--or scientific--question. For example, 
>"What is the nature of consciousness?"

[A quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein:]

>>How does the philosophical problem about mental processes and states 
>>and about behaviourism arise?  [ . . . ] We talk of processes and 
>>states and leave their nature undecided . . . [W]e have a definite 
>>concept of what it means to learn to know a process better . . . So we 
>>have to deny the yet uncomprehended process in the yet unexplored 
>>medium. And now it looks as if we had denied mental processes. And 
>>naturally we don't want to deny them . . . We have an analogy in mind, 
>>and the analogy invites us to explore the question just as though we 
>>were answering a question, say, of physics or biology.

>The most valuable thing one can do in connection with such questions is 
>to examine why one wants to ask them.

>For example, what is one asking who asks, "What is consciousness?". 
>What is the basis of this question? What do we mean by "consciousness"? 
>_Does_ this word have a meaning when it's used like this?

The connection between the quote and your proposal for dealing with 
questions like "what is consciousness" isn't clear to me.  In the 
passage you quoted, LW seems to be suggesting that there is something to 
such questions ("naturally we don't want to deny [mental processes]") 
but the way they are phrased is misleading.  You sound somewhat as if 
you thought such questions would disappear if we could sort out our 
thought about things more clearly.  The two views seem very different to 
me.

One thought -- if questions like "what is the nature of consciousness" 
get asked because of a misapplication of concepts that are used in the 
empirical sciences, it seems that people who lived before the rise of 
modern natural science would not have asked such questions.  Is that the 
case?
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
Keywords: Devil, Nietzsche, Sin
Organization: Very disorganized.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:16:01 GMT

In article <92106.212236BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
>... the Christian idea of a Devil is bullshit!  There is no primal
>evil force in the Universe, ...

My feelings exactly.  Would you agree with Nietzsche's view of free
will as an invention of the priests? (eg, in "Genealogy of Morals")
He says it is a way for the priests to have power over the opressed,
because saying I have free will means I am responsible for my actions,
which means I can sin and be guilty, and hence will need the priest to
absolve me, thus giving him power over me.

Of course, the fact that I am in a body, that my mind is caused by my
brain, that a thought enters my mind when _it_ wills, not when _I_
will, means that free will is a fiction.


On a related note, I always found Plato's position silly, when he says
that no one deliberately does evil, and that those who do evil act out
of ignorance.  If only they could be instructed, they would see the
suffering that results from their actions  ("The Republic").  This is
related to the Christian Devil, who deceives us into evil deeds.  If
we "knew better" we would not be easily deceived.

What nonsense.  People do indeed like to see others suffer
occasionally.  We are predators, and we don't do it out of ignorance,
and we can't have aggression and socially unacceptable behaviour
"taught out of us".  Coerced out of us, yes, but coercion is not
education.


Besides, early Christians treated the earth-religions of Europe as
sinful, and I'm sure the fact that the Devil has horns has to do with
some religion based on cattle, which got a bum rap from the church.
The temptations of the Devil must have originally referred to the
tendencies of the newly converted to revert to their old religions.



Alejo Hausner (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:38:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr8.143852.27915
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 919

Golly, but with all this focus on the mystical mutterings of
Ludwig W., and pronouncements of his such as

> Philosophical investigations: conceptual investigations. The essential  
> thing about metaphysics: it obliterates the distinction between factual  
> and conceptual investigations"      L.Wittgenstein.  
  
I wonder if anyone might be interested in looking back at Carnap's
"The Elimination of Metaphysics" which predates Ludwig the Obscure.
(Or maybe even try Hume?  Nah!)  For those not of faint heart,
"Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" is even better.  Of course you
need to be aware that these types of papers are not presented in
the Sesame Street cum shopping-list style that Wittgenstein adopted
post-Tractatus.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm