HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: What is Love?  _The Story of O_
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.183611.8421@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>From article <1992Sep10.153356.20177@guinness.idbsu.edu>, by holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes):
>> The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
>> it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
>> would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
>> (although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
>> false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
>> it were biography).
>
>You are making a grave mistake in this regard.  The sort of
>violent sexual practices spoke of in _The Story of O_ is a well
>documented phenomena.  It is not unrealistic.  It may be shocking,
>but not unrealisitc.  Also, the phenomena of Satanism and its 
>workings with love may also prove shocking--but they still remain 
>realistic.    If you want to make serious ground on the issue of love,
>these things must be accounted for--don't take the easy way out.
>I think abusive relationships, sexual abuse within the family, etc
>should also qualify as a problem with love.  
>
>See _The Beloved Life of Henry Suso_ which
>is not sexual in nature, but clearly reveals the degree to which an
>individual will enslave themselves in the name of love.  This book,
>by the way, is an autobiography.
>
>
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
>Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
>University of Chicago
> 
>"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I didn't make this mistake -- I did say that it might represent
_actual_ consequences of the adoption of a false (faulty, if you like)
moral standard.  Such things could be biographical in this case, but
they would not be normative for the study of love.





-- 
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
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:47:58 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

I think a lot of the confusion on this topic comes from the assumption
"feelings are transient".  I think this assumption is wrong.

Some feelings are indeed transient.  Others are very deeply ingrained and
last a lifetime.  And yet others fill in the spectrum in between.

Examples of feelings which are in between: I will fairly often have a desire
to eat some particular food.  This desire can last up to a week or so (or
until fulfilled), but will not generally last much longer.  (Of course, it
changes character when I'm not hungry; but the essential desire to eat that
particular food is "I'd like to have that soon", not "I'd like to have that
right now".  In fact, I can have a desire for a food, be hungry, and yet not
want that food now -- for example, if it is a dessert and I'm having
breakfast.)

A desire for some more complex experience, like "visit Europe", may last
many years.  Or I may have a fondness for my car for a few years, but not
care about after I get rid of it.  (Sometimes people do continue to care,
but the point is that they may not.)

I think all of these things, as well as the various types of love, hate,
fear, etc., are all feelings; it is the idea that "feelings are
[necessarily] transitory" that is wrong.
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:1812 sci.philosophy.tech:3141
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:15:17 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Sep7.082543.25359@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au> writes:

|> The basic lesson from evolutionary theory is that there are no hard
|> distinctions between such activities as science and other structured
|> traditions. Hull takes this literally (and so he should).

Quite a lesson to draw from a theory that is about (and successful in)
a particular biological domain.  Suddenly, because we have a good theory
accounting for change in biological populations over time, we ipso
facto have a successful theory concerning science, theory change,
and knowledge?  I remain somewhat skeptical about this extension.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:18:23 GMT

From article <laf7qfINNh6t@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, by danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]):
> (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> 
> ...
> The problem being, of course, that love does not "heal" in and of itself.
> 
DO:

> What does this mean?

 Which part troubles you?  I will say this much: I am dealing in
psychological aspects of love.  Other than that, I see no reason
why the sentence isn't self evident.
> 
> Dano

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D1518CB7022434@manager.ccc.monash.edu.au>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 7 Sep 92 02:35:56 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne Australia
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:35:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.160709.1@wizard.colorado.edu> ,
windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
>I think you can defend evolutionary epistemology without using
>genetic models as the sole criteria for what phenomenon is can be 
>usefully thought of as 'evolutionary'. Genetics can be seen as a specific
>instance of evolutionary theory, not the de facto criteria for using
>the term. I wouldn't say the nature of a system had to 
>conform to the rules of blackjack in order to be probabilistic!
>
>Evolution theory implies an 'arrow of time'. This I think this is its 
>essential point. Note that most other deterministic models do not
>make such distinctions. There is no *necessary* direction of time in
>Newtonian, Einsteinian or Quantum physics. There does appear to be
>directional time in entropy, evolution, etc. Both the evolution,
>in a genetic sense, and the development of ideas, in an epistemological
>sense, participate in some underlying pinions of phenomenon which 
>changes within constraints, seemingly linearly in time.
>   
>The problem with the analogy to genetics, are merely artifacts of
>instantiating too closely with a single representation of an underlying
>mechanism. Besides, I've seen memetic arguments that easily draw
>correspondences to mechanisms of inheritence, mutation, randomness and
>parts of parts. Look at this thread for example.

Yes, but a "genetic" analogy is also possible. If a meme is defined (with
as much looseness as Williams' evolutionary gene -- any functional unit
that is subject to selection pressures) as a set of coordinates in a
conceptual space, you get close parallels with the function of gene as
information transmission mechanism. A meme become that cultural (or
propositional) entity of which most structure is transmitted, and which
contributes to the bearer's economic success, and therefore the
likelihood of further transmission.

Hull and Dawkins have distinguished between the replicator and interactor
entities as sufficient for evolution to occur in a strctly darwinian way.
This has been accepted by such luminaries as Ghiselin and Eldredge, and a
general analysis of evolution that can apply to non-biological entities
has been developed at length in Hull's _Science as a process_. Sorry for
the telegraphic reply: have to go home now.

John Wilkins
Manager, Publishing & Advertising
Monash University, Melbourne Australia
Internet: john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 573 2099

"Nature is profligate in variety but niggardly in innovation"
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:03:53 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
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 <d!vnhpk.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:

>So in what way is _The_Story_of_O_ extreme?

If you're at all familiar with this story, and are still asking this
question, then there's no point in answering you. This truly is a case of
"if you have to ask, then don't bother". 

Dialogue implies a certain degree of mutual understanding; if this
understanding is not present, then dialogue is impossible. If you hear a
story about a woman who is tortured for sexual pleasure (I believe she's
tortured to death in the end--or at least this is implied), and you ask,
"why is this story extreme?", then I would say that dialogue with you is,
indeed, impossible.

But you're kidding, right? 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 03:02:02 GMT

From article <97vn+!q.anson@netcom.com>, by anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy):
> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
> 
>>As the person who originally attracted the fury of moral relativism, I
>>should say that Gary (here) and Peter Cash (elsewhere) have been doing
>>such a fine job of responding that I haven't felt the need to reply.
> 
> Yes, but no one has yet stated precisely *why* O's morality is "faulty."
> 

  Neither has anyone cared to explain what morality has to do with love.
Not that it doesn't have anything to do with love, but I find it
remarkable that I posted this story originally to ask questions about
love and the rest of the postings have been consumed in ethical theory.
It seems that everyone assumes that Mr. Holmes was dismissing this
text on moral grounds when he simply claimed it to be unrealistic.
Nowhere have I seen the implied ethical problems of this text
tied to love--either negatively or positively..  In any event,
I would conclude based on the response that it seems that "love"
and "ethics"(morality) are considered to be inextricably bound by
the posters on this forum in such a way that they are one and the same.
I say this because it seems that the argument runs like this: "The
ethical credibilty of this text will lead to the credibilty of
its stance on love" although this tie has not been stated such.
Am I in error?

  If ethics and love are so bound, then we ought to
be concerning ourselves with an ethics of love.  Although, I am 
not certain I can resign myself to understand love as an ethics.
So I ask, in what way do ethics and love tie?  Further, in what
way does an argument like the one just stated hold?

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Anson Kennedy  

k
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D14F5813012434@manager.ccc.monash.edu.au>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 7 Sep 92 02:26:32 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne Australia
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:25:43 GMT

In article <BtuLv5.J22@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill,
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com writes:
>My wife's dissertation was on this subject (under David Hull, Arthur
>Fine, and Paul Teller).  I can probably provide something of a partial
>bibliography.  She beat up on the whole idea pretty violently, though
>it does not seem to have affected Hull's view much.

Hull's view is not, as he claims, epistemology, but a study in the
dynamics of ideas as social entities. To that end he posits "conceptual
inclusive fitness" as the driving mechanism of science structured in
demic research programs. He draws no real morals from his analysis, but
there are some to be drawn.

The Popper/Campbell/Bartley view fails to distinguish between the
developmental aspect of hypothesising (the parallel of organismic
development) and the selection processes that occur in the population of
scientific practitioners. For that reason, it is basically a lamarkian
view of change.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that epistemology needs to be naturalised
in the sense that the scientific process is undirected and not guaranteed
of success no matter what the Method is. Popper said a lot of useful and
interesting things, and it is interesting too how he has affected people
like Mayr, Ghiselin and Hull.

The basic lesson from evolutionary theory is that there are no hard
distinctions between such activities as science and other structured
traditions. Hull takes this literally (and so he should).

John Wilkins
Manager, Publishing & Advertising
Monash University, Melbourne Australia
Internet: john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 573 2099

"Nature is profligate in variety but niggardly in innovation"
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:46:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
>it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
>would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
>(although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
>false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
>it were biography).

Question:  What is a "false moral standard?"
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Heidegger and Nazism -- one more time
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:54:23 GMT
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)

In article <Bu9EB0.GsL@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> It is not my intention to stir the embers of the recently
|> extinguished dispute on this subject, but as I was scanning
|> recent journal articles this weekend I stumbled across the
|> following in the latest volume of _Philosophia_ :
|> 
|> 	What Price Deconstruction?  Derrida on Heidegger
|> 	and the Question of Nazism:  A Critical Study
|> 
|> 	_Philosophia_, Vol. 21, 183-199
|> 
|> I though others might be interested in it.  Unfortunately,
|> I seem to have neglected to jot down the name of the author.
|> -- 
|> Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
|> SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
|> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

Thanks Gary for the reference. I did'nt follow that thread because I
was out of pocket on the NET for awhile, but I'd recently read what
I consider to be a very good book on the subject of Deconstruction
called "Sign Of the Times". The author is David Lehman. The first part
is dedicated to an attempt at comming to terms with the definition and
consequences of the deconstruction, while the second part discusses
the role of deconstruction in the demise of Paul DeMan. The book is
germain not only because of the issues surrounding deconstruction, but
because DeMan has a similar association. You'll find the book in the 
literary criticism section of any good book store. 

fjc
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: 9050507@csuna.mur.csu.edu.au (ANTHONY HOFFMANN)
Subject: Love ...
Organization: Computer Centre - Charles Sturt University , Murray
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:03:56 GMT

Q. Love?
A. The total belief in all that is.
From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:15:47 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

In article <18dt94INNqsb@agate.berkeley.edu> epfaith@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith) writes:
>JS>Hello world
>
>JS>Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that
>JS>exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
>JS>In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?
>
>
>It is asked if there are any events without causes.  Arthur Schopenhauer
>argued that this would be inconceivable (The Fourfold Root of the
>Principle of Sufficient Reason--first root)
>
>But what about singularities in spacetime?  Black holes seem to simply
>be the end of anything that falls in them, at least in the classical,
>Einsteinian maodel.  A rock falls into a black hole, and it simply
>vanishes when it reaches the singularity.  Poof, not even a cloud of
>smoke.  In this case, there is an event without an effect.
>
>Turn this around and you have an event without a cause, as for example
>the Big Bang.

Cool beanstalks!  Black holes are always making philosophers of the
physicists...  Perhaps it is that the first cause and the last effect
are singularities.  (Although astronomers really don't yet know what
happens in a black hole -- my uneducated hypothesis is that the trapped
matter does not vanish, unless a singularity _is_ as good as vanished.)

This post second-guessed what I was about to ask the group: namely, can
anyone name a cause without an effect?  I like the idea of the
effectless black hole, but it doesn't satisfy me; since I can imagine the
rock-components being relentlessly driven closer and closer together
into one superdense, infinitely small particle, I therefore see an
"effect."  I don't feel quite as squirmy about black holes as I do about
the *first* big bang.

Another question for the well-read: I recall Kant said that it was a
metaphysical law of nature that "Every event has a cause."  (Maybe
that's not what he called it; my _Meta_of_G_of_Morals_ is at home.)  In
his other many-paged tomes, does he reason this out somewhere?


Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (5 day terminus countdown)
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:43:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.212107.29811@honte.uleth.ca> brownd@hg.uleth.ca writes:
>From: brownd@hg.uleth.ca
>Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
>Date: 4 Sep 92 21:21:07 GMT

>With regards to the question of effects without causes, one
>might argue that some human action can be understood as an effect
>that anticipates a future cause. e.g. "Why are you going to 
>university? Because it will make my parents happy." But 
>even here we find a determination of action by cultural rules,
>meanings, definitions of the situation, and expectations.

That all effects have causes is analytic, dude. That all *events* have 
causes is either 1) an absolute presupposition of science, or  2) a 
regulative idea or rule, a kind of recipe to follow for scientists, or 3) an 
synthetic a prior category of the mind making any significant experience of 
the world or any initiation of an action possible, or 4) a disputed 
metaphysical thesis variously encapsulated in such formulae as "The universe 
is entirely governed by causal laws" "The present is entirely determined by 
the past" "The past determines a unique future", etc. Much has been written 
on the status of what is sometimes called the principle of universal 
causation. Quantum physics, Hiesenbergs principle of uncertainty, and 
other things, are now fashionably thought to have provided grounds for 
taking exception to this principle, but all the stuff I've read on these 
fields and the philosophical extrapolations based on them hasn't convinced 
me that natural phenonema aren't completely and uniformly causally 
connected.  None of the writings I've read avoid the confusion [endemic to 
the whole discussion of the relevance of the new physics and old 
philosophical problems about determinism and causation] between 
epistemological problems in observation and the metaphysical issue 
of what exists in reality.  

There is, after all, no fuzziness in the world, only in our ideas of it.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta