HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Netslinger Laws
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:34:59 GMT
Reply-To: Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
writes..

>David and Leo go to it, don't they?! I've really enjoyed it so far.
>And now it seem they've gone and patched things up! :(

Oh - Hi Tagi. Din't see you lurking there. Weeel... Look in all
fairness I was going to let sleeping whotsits.. but all this stuff
about myth and philosophy? I have to throw some 'old dried meat' for
the analytical dogs to chew over, now they're all excited.

If I get time for a posting - in the next day or ten...


>Oh but I was just beginning to learn what REAL Netslingers do!

Hmm..

The Old Pretender
From: Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Free Will and Satan
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:15:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.201512.7843
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In a Philosophy of Religion class I am taking the question arose whether 
the devil could become good again.  My professor thinks that the answer is
"no"  because the devil's will has become so flawed to the point where
it cannot change its course.  My question is what things have to occur for
a person to lose their free will?   Is it possible to use your free will
to altrer the nature of all future uses of your free will.  Is the reverse
true, 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.
What philosophers have taken on this project?  Are there any working on it 
now?  Rather, maybe theologians are working on this one.
Any help will be beneficial to my soul:-)
Brennan
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb)
Subject: Re: Taoism
Organization: Rensselaer Mathematics Dept., Troy NY
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:58:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.234136.18152@demon.co.uk> Leo Smith writes:
>>        These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
>>        This appears as darkness.
>>        Darkness within darkness.
>>        The gate to all mystery.

>Hmmm..

darkness is lack of light
ignorance is lack of knowledge
recognition of ignorance of darkness of non-self
is not enough
for the process never ends
but begins at the same place

Lao Tzu #14:

	Look, it cannot be seen -- it is beyond form.
	Listen, it cannot be heard -- it is beyond sound.
	Grasp, it cannot be held -- it is intangible.
	These three are indefinable;
	Therefore they are joined in one.

	From above it is not bright;
	From below it is not dark:
	An unbroken thread beyond description.
	It returns to nothingness.
	The form of the formless,
	The image of the imageless,
	It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

	Stand before it and there is no beginning.
	Follow it and there is no end.
	Stay with the ancient path,
	Move with the present.

-- 
Todd McComb                             mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.1]
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
From: fjc@osf.org (Frank Casper)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:05:13 GMT

In article <7k5td5@rpi.edu>, mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes:
|> 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]

It seems to me that your question as to whether western philosophy has
become "merely" history would get an affirmative answer from some or even
most of Foucault's contemporaries. Some of them, I'm thinking of Rorty
as an example, would be comfortable describing philosophy as a history of
failed ideas. I don't know much about Foucault, but I don't think he'd
be counted among them. Perhaps you can provide this discussion with 
Foucault's point of view. I've been reading a book that uses Foucault to argue
against a trend in contemporary thought regarding a heavy emphasis on the
status of language. I must say that I'm more intrigued by what the book 
says about Foucault than I ma with the book itself.

fjc
-- 

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
  Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial 
excess of subjectivity....
  Kant made the world totally dependent upon the categories of thought, 
completely oblivious to the scarce supply of thinking...
						A.N. Whitehead

"We are the most powerful planet on Earth." -- Vice-President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: fjc@osf.org (Frank Casper)
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:19:28 GMT

I am dumbfounded by your dumbfoundedness.  Seriously, I'm really curious
about what you think is odd here.  Just so we all go into this with our
true colors flying, keep in mind that I am a long-time atheist who
taught philsosophy for 10 years at both the graduate and undergradute
level in a Jesuit university.  I have always been fascinated by philosophy
of religion -- though of course no one ever let me teach much of it.  So
what's your beef?

-- 
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

Gary,

	It's not philosophy of religion I take issue with, but do you
think the question about whether Satan can become good should be the
subject of a serious philosophical or discussion?

fjc
-- 

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
  Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial 
excess of subjectivity....
  Kant made the world totally dependent upon the categories of thought, 
completely oblivious to the scarce supply of thinking...
						A.N. Whitehead

"We are the most powerful planet on Earth." -- Vice-President Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:552 alt.mythology:1061
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:20:34 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

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?

>...
>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.

There were these people in a cave, and there was light, and shadows in
the cave...
						---Plato

What if there were a cat in a box, and a cosmic ray trigger which could
break a glass vial full of a deadly poison gas...?
						---Schroedinger

I am forced to believe that either:
	(1)  Plato is not a philosopher
	-or-
	(2)  Some philosophers are also artists
	-or-
	(3)  Some people defy categorization, and dare to think with
		their whole entire brain at once.
(I'll accept (2) & (3) as simultaneous solutions)

Remember that left- and right-brainedness (if it exists at all -- it
may be a myth) is not a dichotomy so strong as male and female, or even
so strong, perhaps, as left- or right-hand dominance, which it is theorized
to follow.  Most *truly* creative people I know exhibit signs of both
left- and right-brained approaches to creation and problem solving.

-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: khoo-siau-cheng@CS.YALE.EDU (Siau Cheng Khoo)
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:26:13 GMT

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
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Taoism
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk


 mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes..

>As long as Zen is making an entrance, I might as well type in
>something most of you have probably seen.

>        The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao.
Once space time enters the equaition we already have a model, not
reality.
>        The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Once you divide what is and give it names, it is a model, not reality
>        The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
What *is* is beyond our power to comprehend
>        The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
What we divide the world into, is our own constructions
>        Ever desireless, one can see mystery.
If you aren't looking and thinking, you might just catch a glimpse of
something beyond your own mind...
>        Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
So long as you are thinking, you will see the products of your
thoughts..
>        These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
>        This appears as darkness.
>        Darkness within darkness.
>        The gate to all mystery.

Hmmm..

>Paraphrase in this context:

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

Thats too clever for me :-)

>More from Lao Tzu (#18 & #72):

>        When wisdom and intelligence are born,
>        The great pretense begins.
Agreed.
>        When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.

I am not so sure about that.

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

Tagi?

-- 
Todd McComb                             mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.1]
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Robert Hooker)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:07:00 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences


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).

If memory serves these problems often dealt with very scientific as well a 
moral issues.  Levi-Strauss would argue that myth is philosophy and 
science for "primative" cultures.

Granted philosophy as it is practiced by many in America and Great Britian 
has evolved very far from its mythic origin, but can anyone really say 
that the two have seperated forever.

Can Nietzsche's work be simply devided between myth and philosophy?  Is he 
a myth maker or a philosopher?  Is Plato's Cave myth or philosophy?  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: SoftQuad Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:21:37 GMT

stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:


>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.

I completely agree with another poster who commented that the content of
these discussions were full of myths themselves.  You should remember that
the first philosophers did nothing unusual other than to rationalize
myths.  As a form of representation of what we believe is the truth
or what is really happening, all language is myth.  All language
in the form of being a conveyance and a construction of communicating
tools is another thing apart from the actual.  This is the biggest
weakness in modern Western thought - we can't let go of the quest -
science has really convinced us that progress is real on the quest
for truths.  If you remind someone that something they have been
pursuing is a theory - which is a rationalized mythological representation
- they can become quite upset.  The only things we truly understand
are our own human inventions.  Our machines have been
created by our intentions and by our constructions, parts, and functions.
Every piece that has a name has its name by its invention.  To
apply this same practice to the natural world is a prejudice.
How do we know that everything will, in truth, be like our mechanical
understandings?  How do we know that the same type of thought and
tactics used to make violins and airplanes will have a place
among the actual ways of the whistling wind and birds?

Philosophy, science, and language are too full of themselves.
Strangely enough, your average bar fly is more aware of this than
educated persons.

--Donald Teed
From: lynx@terapin.com (Debbie ---<--<@)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Right and Wrong
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:05:27 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

Sounds like you're creating the physical boundaries of the ideas with the
terms you use and not discussing the ideas, except for those that fit the
boundaries you've created.  How would you define happiness based on aesthetic
appreciation?  Would you consider it intrinsic since the object of the
aprreciation is apprciated for it's own sake and valued as is?  Would you call
it extrinsic because the happiness derived from the the appreciation can be
quantified by the perceiver as greater than if the relationship of aesthetic
appreciatin did not exist.  Do you really believe with people, it is one or
the other, or rather a shifting which either balances or becomes skewed.  I'm
sorry to just post.  I'm not familiar with the paradigm nor do I have a
background in philosophy.  I maybe obviously tired, but I do like to think. 
Are you going to say that when the gradations of happiness get beyond some
arbitrary point then it automatically  defines the happiness as extrinsic? 
Would that arbitrary point be different form person to person?  Are there some
forms of happiness that would be considered more ethical than others.  Can
everybody tune to the same stations, so to speak, to perceive the same kinds
of happiness be it intrinsic or extrinsic.  Can a form of happiness be both? 
If by deriving pleasure from happiness is it automatically extrinsic or does
it have to be sought for that purpose?  Again, I apologize, and hope I've at
least provided some humor.  It just seems to my untrained analytical sleepy
mind, that the terms/constructs used neatly seemed to box in the ideas with
words.  When however the focus is on clarifying the ideas the contructs
themselves seem contrived and tenuous at best.
From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:38:31 GMT
Organization: GRAMMA

>>>>> In article <1992Apr8.143852.27915@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
sasghm> Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
sasghm> Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
sasghm> X-Bytes: 919

sasghm> Golly, but with all this focus on the mystical mutterings of
sasghm> 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.  
sasghm>   
sasghm> I wonder if anyone might be interested in looking back at Carnap's
sasghm> "The Elimination of Metaphysics" which predates Ludwig the Obscure.

With the very probable condition that you count the author of 
Tractatus as obscure the above "predates" is simply false.
There are some remarks W. made to Schlick about this very issue
recorded that make this point.

Best regards Anders


sasghm> -- 
sasghm> Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
sasghm> SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm> sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
--
_____

"The fact that there seems to be a big gap in quality between
the works of Wittgenstein  and most of his followers would
appear to indicate that there is much more to the method than
can be learnt from Wittgenstein's teaching"

Hao Wang in "From Mathematics to Philosophy".
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and myth
Organization: Rensselaer Mathematics Dept., Troy NY
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:33:27 GMT

As long as Zen is making an entrance, I might as well type in something
most of you have probably seen.

	The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao.
	The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
	The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
	The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
	Ever desireless, one can see mystery.
	Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
	These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
	This appears as darkness.
	Darkness within darkness.
	The gate to all mystery.

Paraphrase in this context:

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

More from Lao Tzu (#18 & #72):

	When wisdom and intelligence are born,
	The great pretense begins.

	When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.

-- 
Todd McComb                             mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.1]
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:02:49 GMT
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: Newt World Order

What everybody is forgetting in this discussion is that myth, as
anthropology and folklore, the two fields of endeavor most involved with
myth, understand it, is not a creative act done by one person, it is an
understanding of the nature of reality reached by a culture. Telling the
myth, or writing it down, can be a creative activity, but the myth is
not invented, when someone recognizes it, it appears to have always been
present, it precedes the recognition of itself.

Schroedinger's cat is a representation of the nature of reality. It is
true. Yet you cannot prove that a cat in a box would actually be
indeterminate depending on the state of a quantum entity; it's a
statistical trick. Likewise, modern physics assumes the big bang theory
is true, that an infinitely large amount of matter was once compressed
to an infinitely small point, and that it expanded. It is unprovable. It
seems crazy. Yet it explains the universe better than any competing
theory. The big bang hypothesis is a myth in the anthropological sense.

So is the left-brain/right-brain myth, the artist versus scientist myth,
and so on. Some of these myths have not been expressed in a form so that
we recognise them as myths, they have not been formalized as dogma, but
that doesn't mean they aren't myths.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                  internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Throw this screen against the wall, right now!
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: fjc@osf.org (Frank Casper)
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.201512.7843@news.nd.edu>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu writes:
|> In a Philosophy of Religion class I am taking the question arose whether 
|> the devil could become good again.  My professor thinks that the answer is
|> "no"  because the devil's will has become so flawed to the point where
|> it cannot change its course.  My question is what things have to occur for
|> a person to lose their free will?   Is it possible to use your free will
|> to altrer the nature of all future uses of your free will.  Is the reverse
|> true, 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.
|> What philosophers have taken on this project?  Are there any working on it 
|> now?  Rather, maybe theologians are working on this one.
|> Any help will be beneficial to my soul:-)
|> Brennan

This is not meant to be a flame, but I'm dumbfounded that this kind of talk
goes on in a philosophy department in an American university. Even theologians
don't talk that way. I'd have serious reservations about the caliber of
education being offered by a school in which such a discussion is engaged
in seriously. 

Sorry
fjc
-- 

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
  Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial 
excess of subjectivity....
  Kant made the world totally dependent upon the categories of thought, 
completely oblivious to the scarce supply of thinking...
						A.N. Whitehead

"We are the most powerful planet on Earth." -- Vice-President Dan Quayle