HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:02:52 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1993Jan4.193559.27818@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

Generally a fine post that I agree with.  But I have had it up to here
with the following kind of thing:

> Now, imagine that it is nearly a thousand years later, and you work 
> 45 hrs weekly in a dead-end job with 2 weeks vacation, a half-hr 
> commute, declining benefits, and hazardous working conditions.  You 
> never had a chance to go to College, and your kids probably won't 
> either.  "Good" does not consist of Great Art, it consists of decent 
> dental care for the kids and some recognition of one' humanity from 
> one's employer 

Well-meant, of course, as it usually is.  But
this glib and sweeping nonsense about how the working classes (barely
sentient as they are) are incapable of any concern or interest beyond
food, sex and their unemployment check is deeply offensive.  I grew up
in poverty and I didn't have decent dental care or anything else, and
astonishingly, I developed an interest in Great Art.  Thousands of
others have done the same.  One of the things I resent most about the
"limousine liberals" is their utter incapacity for the variety and
fluidity of human experience.  You would think they had never read a
book, or pondered about how civilization got along before there was a
middle class...

[...]

> -----Greg McColm
> --
> SHAMELESS AD:  Math PhDs in Analysis, Discrete Math./Th. of Comp., Num. Anal., 
> Prob., are invited to apply to the Math. Dept. of Univ. of S. Florida for 
> research/teaching positions that may be available: contact K. L. Pothoven at 
> mathdept@math.usf.edu. Deadline 2/1/93. USF is a politically correct employer.

-Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus et
opinions are my own      | insipientibus debitor sum
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:28:19 GMT

In article <C0Cot6.7wq@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

>	Consider the statue of the Buddha ... Mysticism is a living death. 
>(Listen to "The Role of Religion in Human History" by George Walsh

Read The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. Mysticism is life-affirming.
(Or, Huxley's comments on the intensely positive nature of `self-annihilation',
in chapter 1 of _Ends and Means_.)

>, Laissez Faire Books, audio, for an suprisingly horrifying account of 
>mysticism)  Walsh claims that Western religion is superior to Oriental 
>religion since it, allegedly, provides something beyond consciousness as a 
>focus for consciousness. Small comfort.

Why on earth should we listen to a speaker whose conclusions you 
obviously regard with contempt?

>Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology





Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism (was Re: MINDWALK etc)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:55:47 -0600
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

In article <C0L1Eu.97v@quake.sylmar.ca.us> 
brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.115546.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> 
>bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland) writes:

>>beyond the later-in-life mystical
>>failings of Ayn Rand, but does follow the Aristotelian school of 
>>thought and considers Plato to be the father of the criminal mind.

>Gee,anI thought he was the father of philosophy (well, one of several).
>Have you ever read any Plato?  Any Aristotle?  What is it about Plato
>that makes you think he's "the father of the criminal mind"?

I haven't read a lot of Plato, and I'm not defending or attacking
mysticism or Neo-Tech (although from the discussions, I doubt if I would
find either an exemplary philosophy) but it seems to me that Plato
argues in circles and plays word games, rendering his arguments useless.
It's not a stretch, IMHO, to consider him the father of misleading
argument.  After reading some of Plato's conversations I found the
arguments to be very slippery, and so didn't bother to read the rest of
them.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
Literary Reference:  The introduction to Cervantes' Don Quixote.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Randall's reading list
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:13:17 GMT

Without endorsing much else in Randall's post, I would like to endorse
his suggested reading list. 

>This is a good place to start thinking about Rand's philosophy
>critically; her philosophy of mathematics is unworkable.

To my knowledge, Rand does not have an explicit philosophy of mathematics.
My judgement of the 'workability' of such must thus await a fuller
specification of what Rand's philosophy of mathematics is supposed to
be.  Perhaps Randall only means to say that Rand's philosophy of mathematics
is nonexistent.  And that nonexistent things are unworkable.  That much
I will agree with.

>No.  Do you know about Jimbo Wales' mailing list for discussion of
>Objectivism?  It might be a good thing for you to get into.

Thanks for the plug, Randall.  To subscribe to my list, you can
send a command to... well, that's complicated.  The best way for
interested parties to subscribe is to send me e-mail.  My list
is moderated, serious, polite, and all that.  There also exist other
less formal discussions.  Details available upon request.

--Jimbo
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:2955 sci.philosophy.tech:4725
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:42:46 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

In article <rreiner.726707216@yorku.ca> rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:
>pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>
>>	The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist
>>and anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of
>>rationality.  The psychological application of this witch's brew can be
>>found in the culture of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle" of any
>>drug addict.
>> ...Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism...
>
>Ah, the unsweet smell of a man in the grip of an ideology.  Please,
>somebody, take out this trash.
>
I thought we rode Stubblefield and his "objectivist" gang out here and on to
a private mailing list a couple years ago. Someone please give him
Stubblefield's address so that he does not bother us with his Rand-ing and 
Raving again.
:-)


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Friday, 8 Jan 1993 20:48:14 EST
From: <ACPS7204@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Nehru jackets (was: Mindwalking Buddhists, oh!)
Distribution: world

In article <1id9eoINNj5m@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk>, mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C
Holderness) says:
>
>In <something> Stephen Grossman wrote:
>
>>         Just out of morbid curiosity, what's a Nehru jacket? Is this
Stephen Grossman did not write this. I did.

------->8 snip 8<-------
>successor).Now, transpose said garment to the cover of _Sergeant Pepper_ (a
>record
>released in 196x where (x>7) and (x<=9).
>
Copyright 1967 EMI etc.  I think I made it clear that I was a few years
short of being *born* during this period of time...
I presume that your are _not_ talking about the uniforms that the "Fab 4"
are wearing in the middle of the picture...

>Isn't life complicated?
>
>=mike=
>.
Jeffrey Pikul (ACPS7204@RyeVm.Ryerson.ca)
Still looking for a copy of _The Wealth Of Nations_

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:36:06 GMT


Brian K. Yoder writes:

>I should note that Jimbo Wales and his cohorts are not considered by 
>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).  I subscribed to
>the list at one time, but no longer do so. 

I just wanted to reprint this paragraph for all the world to see.

I thought about writing an elaborate refutation of the statements
(and connotations) contained in this paragraph, but I decided that
simply reprinting the article itself is my best defense.

Mongrel, indeed.

--Jimbo
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:58:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

:In article <C0Cot6.7wq@umassd.edu:pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
:
:>	Consider the statue of the Buddha ... Mysticism is a living death. 
:>(Listen to "The Role of Religion in Human History" by George Walsh
:in chapter 1 of _Ends and Means_.)
:>, Laissez Faire Books, audio, for an suprisingly horrifying account of 
:>mysticism)  Walsh claims that Western religion is superior to Oriental 
:>religion since it, allegedly, provides something beyond consciousness as a 
:>focus for consciousness. Small comfort.
:

What I would like to know is, how does Mr. Walsh claim to know
anything about mysticism? For that matter, what does he mean by
mysticism? And what is it that was horrifying?
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:07:10 GMT

This is an invitation to participate in an email reading group.

I am interested in reading Heidegger's _The Metaphysical Foundations
of Logic_("Logik").

The cover description of the book is as follows:

"Offering a full-scale study of the theory of reality
hidden beneath modern logic, _The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic_,
a lecture course given in 1928, illuminates the transitional phase
in Heidegger's thought from the existential analysis of 
_Being and Time_ to the overcomming of metaphysics in his later
philosophy.  In a searching exposition of the metaphysical
problems underpinning Leibniz's theory of logical judgment,
Heidegger establishes that a given theory of logic is rooted
in a certain conception of Being.  He explores the
significance of Western logic as a system-building technical tool
and as a cultural pheomenon that is centuries old."

Insofar as I am concerned, I will be approaching this text
from a cultural angle.  However, other approaches are encouraged.
My agenda is to check the validity of the argumentation and
assess the consequences on both a description of
"modernity" and on autonomous theologies.  However, other
agendas are encouraged as long as validity is a part of it.

If you are interested, please reply by email so that I can
add you to the list.  I will be mailing out the "reading assignments"
in about 1 week along with the publication information.

Thank You,

Charles O. Onstott, III

-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
           "For [the study of] history, too, has its fashions."  (Anouilh)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:30:59 GMT

In article <Bzqu40.9FK@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.224853.11824@linus.mitre.org>, tucker@mitre.org (William 
>Tucker) writes:
>
>>Throughout this book the central underlying theme has been the unbroken 
>>wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement 
>>without borders. 
>
>    The refusal to connect mind (ie, reason) to reality results in MTV, game 
>shows, Madonna, drug addiction, hangovers, and Nehru jackets. Another result
>is Buddhism or any mysticism.

  Do you know why I like Meister Ekhart?  In part, becuase he prevents
the likes of you from making such grandeous, overgeneralized errors as
the above.  The refusal to connect mind to reality, whatever that means
and I assume you mean the "out there" or the "physical" among other things,
does not necessarily lead to "any mysticism."  For example, we see your brave
assertion shattered before our very eyes in reading Meister Ekhart--
a 15th century mystic.  Might I suggest the "Presence of God" series
by Benard McGinn which traces, in four volumes, the history of Christian
Mysticism.  It will, no doubt, enlighten you and, if you accept
historical documentation, lead to from making such gross generalizations.	
	
> Mysticism will yield certain results but the knowledge to provide
>food, shelter, clothing, political rights, and self-esteem will not be among
>them. 
>See the history of India. 

See, for example, Christian Mysticism.  In particular, Ekhart and
the Beguine Movement.  Not only are they mystical, they
focused almost purely on food, shelter, clothing, political rights(eg, for
women in the Beguine Movement) and almost no mysticism that I am 
aware of does not attempt to provide the knowledge of some form
of self-esteem.  In fact, the first three parts of Ekhart's spiritual
path is in part concerned with the building of self-esteem. 
The forth part: social compassion.

I am not attempting to say in the least that other
forms of mysticism do not do as Christian Mysticism has done repetedly:
I remain silent solely because I am essentially ignorant of any
historical activities done by other forms of mysticism.  

>    Try Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism before permanently surrendering
>your mind to the harsh joys of mysticism and bathing in the Ganges. 

I'm sorry, did you want us to try Ayn Rand's philosophy so that we
might surrender our minds to ignorance(like you and her) of mysticism?

>Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
>===============================================================================

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III
-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
           "For [the study of] history, too, has its fashions."  (Anouilh)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: gj169883@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 169883)
Subject: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:44:22 GMT

  I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
(and epistemology in general).  For this reason I am looking for
schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.

  I would appreciate hearing of any that you might know about.
Thanks.

Colin Rowat
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:00:00 +0000


Lorenzo. I thought about responding to your post re my post, but 
decided that on balance all I had to say were minor quibbles, and not 
of general interest.


Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to put a cleaner 
set of words round the concepts than I was able to. 


It does make a change to get a balanced criticism :-)
(Not that I claim to be a good example you understand :=)

Leo

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:42:14 GMT

In article <C0FvC6.6zJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales) writes:

>Brian K. Yoder writes:

>>I should note that Jimbo Wales and his cohorts are not considered by 
>>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).  I subscribed to
>>the list at one time, but no longer do so. 

>I just wanted to reprint this paragraph for all the world to see.

>I thought about writing an elaborate refutation of the statements
>(and connotations) contained in this paragraph, but I decided that
>simply reprinting the article itself is my best defense.

What's your point?  Do you claim that the philosophy you espouse is
Objectivism or something different?   

What would you call someone who claimed to be a practitioner of "western
medicine" who used leeches and acupuncture to cure his patients?  What 
do you think the proper attitude of real doctors should be toward such people?
If you are going to make statements which are inconsistent with Objectivism,
you ought to be honest enough to call your ideas something else.

>Mongrel, indeed.

What else do you want to call it?

--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Subject: Re: How to Build a Person (book by John Pollock)
Keywords: strong ai
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:34:42 GMT

farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> jampel@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>:
>:Token physicalism: mental states ARE physical states, i.e. thoughts
>:are (can be reduced to) chemical interactions in the brain (and hence
>:why not electrical interactions in a silicon-based machine).
>:
>:Agent materialism: 'agents' (or 'persons' ?) are physical objects
>:i.e. 'souls' or 'minds' are physical (not metaphysical).
>
>I haven't read the book, but regarding these theses: why are they
>necessary for machine intelligence to be possible?

Perhaps it isn't necessary.  But it may be sufficient.  Nobody ever said
there was only one way to achieve intelligence.  (And if there is,
whoever gets the patent on that baby will amass an incredible fortune.)

>If one operates under the idea that some extra-physical
>whatchamacallit comes in and inhabits an organic body, what's to say
>that another whatchamacallit won't come in and inhabit an inorganic
>machine of sufficient complexity?

It could be that both views are true.  I suppose that it could cause a
problem if they were both true in the same object, though.

>				-Lorenzo
>-- 
>Happiness is just a                     ******************************
>remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
>                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
>                                        ******************************
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
Literary Reference:  The introduction to Cervantes' Don Quixote.

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Re: Peter Breggin, _Toxic Psychiatry_ (Q)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:51:30 GMT


Thanks for redirecting followups, I also appreciate the chance to continue
the conversation.  I didn't know sci.med was so anti-inquiry when I started
asking innocent questions about Breggin.

Gee, if I owned a television I'd know all this stuff about him already,
apparently, from talk shows.  Heh.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Th
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:50:16 GMT

In article <gaboy.726092257@well.sf.ca.us> gaboy@well.sf.ca.us (Gerald Boyack) writes:

>In article brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Bryan K. Yoder) writes:

>> Ayn Rand called it "Hatred of the good for being the good"...
>> something more evil than envy.

>I do recall her making quite a point of this.  

I guess that's why you need me hanging around here. ;-)

>I also speculate
>that such hatred is an integral part of the perceived distortions
>of political news by the press.  

It certainly explains part of the psychological reason for such bias.
I think it is interesting that this attitude is so prevalent in the
"intellectual professions" (teachers, journalists, etc.) since they
can't see the same scale of achievements as businessmen, scientists,
and engineers.  They also are much more likely to adopt nihilist,
subjectivist, or skeptical philosophical outlook.  Kinda fits doesn't it?

>CW says that the press is
>prejudiced toward liberalism, probably true.  But I wonder if a
>bigger factor is that press people perceive that they are not
>genuine actors on our worldly stage, and they hate those who are
>capable of actually accomplishing something of substance.  

Well put.

>We
>will soon see the press persecute Clinton, especially if he is
>successful at anything.

But as long as Clinton poses himself as then enemy of the successful,
they'll love him.

--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Maps and territories
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:41:00 +0000

I decided to start a (hopefully interesting) thread, because I felt 
that some of the issues arising from the Buddhism thread were of 
interest, and yet not really relevant to the original thread.

I became increasingly frustrated with what seemed to be an 
insurmountable communication barrier: Every time I tried to indicate 
that the actuality of existence was a very different thing from the 
language that we use to think about it and talk about, I ran into a 
wall of incomprehension.

To Randall for example electrons simply ARE real. There is no 
question about it, no possibility of error. somewhere in his world 
view these tiny things are ineradicably etched.


But it seems to me, that there is experience, and there are models of 
it. The experience of an electron is the blue flash from an HT coil, 
the movement of the Gold leaf of an electroscope. Electron is a 
concept that explains these expereinces in a more simple way, and 
yields predictive power. That IMO is the limit of apllicability of th 
econcept.

Scientific man started from the world of 'normal' 'common sense' 
objects - objects like apples and planes, and deduced laws and 
fundamental particles. 

Modern scientific man STARTS from the laws and fundamental particles, 
and deduces normal objects! 

Buddhism, and some other traditions, start from Mind, and deduces 
experience.

It seems to me that where you end up depends on where you start from, 
not what actually IS.

My large scale maps help me walk the countryside, but they don't help 
me connect through the internet. That reality - of computer 
connectivity - is handled by a completely non-geographical series of 
'net-maps'

Why cannot scientists see that the scientific worldview is a limited 
applicability map, not reality?

Leo