HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: net
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:32:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.123506.18613@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>From the standpoint concerned with the essential nature (admittedly
>neither legal, nor social), as represented by the genotype, your
>protagonist would be male, appearances and phenotype notwithstanding.

Ah.  So you admit that your philosophical standpoint is disconnected
from the legal, social, visual, and physical (phenotypic) standpoints.
And moreover it took you years to convince yourself it was correct.
What we have here is a viewpoint which you have clearly spent an
inordinate amount of time developing, moving further away from the
real world at each stage.  It is a wonder people believe what you are
saying is relevant in any way to the real world.

Fortunately, here on USENET, you have found a community which delights
in wasting time attempting to refute eccentric theories such as yours.
This gives you an audience and gives thousands of others a chance to
decide for themselves whether your theory has merit.  Not that it 
matters what any of them think--you know yourself to be correct....

Thankfully, networks such as this seem to be better at exposing
bogosities and irrelevancies than many other forms of discourse.
There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
how suspect your "arguments" are.  And those of us who are concerned
with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
safer place for people of all sexual orientations.
-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3048 rec.arts.books:22875 alt.politics.homosexuality:8245
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:38:42 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductivenes

In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) says:
>
>In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu>
>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>       Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it.
>>       But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
>
>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>time before the climax.

And what you have to bear in mind here is that this stupid bullshit
counts as "philosophy". There may be a single soul out there who
doesn't think this is stupid, but surely only one. This is the
"cunt nearby" argument. Even though *this* coupling is absolutely
sterile, it is not *essentially* sterile, since there is a cunt
nearby. And even if, say, the female in this coupling is utterly
sterile, the coupling itself is not itself *essentially* sterile,
since heterosexual couplings are *essentially* generative, even
when in the specific case utterly sterile. I think this is called
"Platonism"...it sure does sound smart, doesn't it? I wish this
would work in my job. "Sure, boss, I know that the operating
system doesn't work, but that's accidental rather than essential.
MVS is *essentially* operational, and the fact that it's now
totally hosed is only an accident, so it doesn't count."

Utterly, utterly, utterly stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Repeat after
me, *STUPID*. This shit is fucking dumb. Dumb. Stupid. Dumb.
And everybody knows it except the stupid MZ himself, who thinks
he's clever. He isn't.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: dcantor1@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: re:the golden rule
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 DEC 92 20:41:23 GMT

Since no one cares for do as you would have done. 
I will comment on the other statement.

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Consciousness and Truth
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:18:46 GMT

|> Svein writes:
|> >The mistake lies in requiring that the Subject is to be found
|> >among the objects. But that is precisely what it is not. Every
|> >time you reach for the Subject like it was Object, and think
|> >you have grasped it - it is not It. For the Subject can never
|> >be Object.

Jimbo replies: 
|> I would just like to make clear that although Svein usually espouses
|> the Objectivist position on a variety of subjects, this view of
|> consciousness is not the Objectivist position.  Quite frankly, I
|> think it is totally incoherent and meaningless.

Which should show to anyone else that there are a lot of sensible
ideas to gather from Objectivist literature, and that you don't
have to buy Objectivism wholesale. Good to know in these post modern
times...

The final arbiter in the quest for truth is the individual reason.
Jimbo and I have obviously used our rational faculties differently
here. Some of the mistake, I conjecture, is to be understood from the
fact that a true statement does not simply consist in a sentence, but
also involves the context in which it is uttered. Truth is about
states of mind (in relation to the subject matter), and not about
sentences. Not having the context in which my reply to Tagi was
intended, there's a fair chance Jimbo got the wrong state of mind.
I.e. it did not communicate my meaning to him.

So much for theories of truth based on sentences only ..


Solan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jhale@mentorg.com (Jim Hale)
Subject: avoiding determinism
Summary: 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:20:29 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 (scott) PL7]
Keywords: 


I belive that we are a physical process (chemical, electrical, mechanical,
etc.). All aspects of our Being (emotions, thought, action, etc.) are
characteristics of this process. The complexity of this process (number 
of inputs, sub-processes, their interaction, etc.) is such as to make it 
incomprehendsable in its entirity.

What I'm struggling with is how to avoid being a determinist. Does being a
physical process mean our actions are determined by physical laws (including 
random events)? Does it mean we are just anolog robots?

The answer I've come up with so far is that there is a teleology to all
processes. A teleology not in the sense of some god's design, but in the sense
that the direction a process takes is parameterized by the Being of that
which makes up the process. An example might be that the teleology of life
can be characterized by the will to live. The process of life moves in the
direction of that which is necessary to sustain itself. This applies to us in
the sense that we each have a unique makeup, hence a unique teleology. This
teleology is what paramerterizes out actions (provides a directionality).

Does this avoid determanism? Not really, but it does supply a virtual replacement
for the soul. Instead of having this thing that exists off in the ether some
where, you have a dynamic of a process which uniquely defines who you are. I
can live with that as easily as a soul given to me by god, and at least there
is some emperical evidence for it.

So, what do y'all in news land think about all this?

--

Thanks,
Jim Hale          jim_hale@mentorg.com          ...!uunet!mntgfx!jhale
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2910 rec.arts.books:22215
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Nathaniel Branden
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:16:22 GMT

I must say, I will never cease to be amazed at how many people 
apparently think that politeness is suddenly unnecessary when
talking to or about Objectivists.  People who are willing to
extend every kindness to the most absurd sort of crazy stuff
suddenly feel free to resort to mocking insults.

Nathaniel Branden is alive and well, and a practicing psychologist
in California.  He has written several books since his break with
Rand, most of which are 'self-help psychology' books.  I think that
the best among them is his _The Psychology of Self-Esteem_.

I had to restrain myself to keep from simply flaming you to a crisp
for your offensive insults.  But I thought it rather a bit more
productive to simply answer your question with a minimum of 
hostility.  I do so hope that you will follow my example, and
raise your standards a notch or two before asking another question
of the same sort.

--Jimbo








Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: The Golden Rule Correctly Understood
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:52:31 GMT

The Xtian version of the Golden Rule is an altruistic perversion of the
correct version as understood in Judaism. The correct version is:

	What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.

This is derived from a Mitvah stated in Parshat K'Doshim to wit:

	V'yahavta Rayecha K'moach whics is Hebrew for
	You shall love thy fellow as thyself.

That is you hold your fellow human in the same regard as you hold
yourself, no more, no less. The implication of this is that rightness and
rectitude apply to all equally, and one should not make special pleading
for his own case or anyone else's.

Conan the Libertarian


-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3040 rec.arts.books:22839 alt.politics.homosexuality:8210
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:03:31 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec16.210512.3427@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <BzCIMK.AK3@unix.amherst.edu> 
>>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

JMF:
>>>	Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
>>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
>>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
>>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it. 
>>>	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
>>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
>>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
>>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
>>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
>>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.

MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax.  The long form will be found in my latest
>>reply to Mike Morris.  I await my promised reward.

RJF:
>Sorry.  No G.I. Joes.  That potentially productive venue can actually be a 
>potentially destructive venue.  If the male/female couple has already had
>2 children, having another would be a deadly contribution to the world's
>population.  Or don't you understand the exponential function yet?

Sorry myself.  Consequentialism has been soundly trashed since the
Malthusian heyday.  Look it up.

>>>							-Skippy

>Rod

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3019 rec.arts.books:22707 alt.politics.homosexuality:8135
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: FREE WILL 2: Neither a Determinist nor an Indeterminist be.
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:41:33 GMT

In article <spurrett.75.723752038@superbowl.und.ac.za> spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:
>What is this `real free will' of which you speak?  Also, since the point on
>which there was disagreement was so obvious I did not see the need to quote
>the sentence you mention.

I can't speak for Rickert, but to me "real free will" is your ability to make
a decision independant of previous causal chains of events.

The cause of "real free will" (if it exists) therefore cannot be explained
mechanistically.

As the classical universe is mechanistic, "real free will" must come from
something beyond the classical understanding of the universe.

The only other option is to say that free will is just an illusion.
This is the quick easy option.

However, I like the challenge of the former courageous option. It more fun
pursuing this line of thought, just in case it leads somewhere. The easy
option is boring, untestable and not audacious enough.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 14:27:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.011612.18713@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>Though I have no interest in tooting my own
>horn,

Seemed to me like masturbation was right up your alley.

>I shall note that in the past two years, not a single one among
>my opponents in this debate has managed to convict me of a logical
>inconsistency.

Your arguments, as far as I can tell, are logically consistent but
rooted in quicksand.  If you happen to consider that a virtue, good
luck in debate class.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The Golden Rule Correctly Understood
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:45:58 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9212.17 e.v.


I just stumbled across this and figured I'd comment.


No doubt there is some reasoning behind this 'Golden Rule' which
includes histrionics.  I have discovered what I feel is a more
useful interpretation of this Rule.

The Golden Rule is a MONASTIC RULE.  That is, it is designed to
bring about the transformation of consciousness in one who
practices it.  

The PRACTICE of this Rule is as follows:

If you have a desire that others behave in a particular fashion, begin
behaving that way yourself.

I.e. if you want to be loved, set about loving others.  If you want to
get money, begin giving others money.  If you want others to be very
quiet and listen to you, then begin being very quiet and listening.
If you wish your husband would stop shopping at Longs Drugstore, then
be sure not to shop there and any money which you have say over be
sure it doesn't go to Longs (even through your husband).


The effect can be quite interesting, I'd imagine.  It conforms to the
Taoist theory of polarity with regard to psychology and inner development.
It allows one to identify with the Other and begin to see what we want
for ourselves that we project onto other people.


Enjoy.

Thyagi
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2993 rec.arts.books:22583 alt.politics.homosexuality:8057
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:08:00 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzDLED.IID@unix.amherst.edu> 
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

TP:
>(Rec.arts.books has been removed from followups.)

I think not.

>In article <1992Dec16.152321.18570@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes on why oral sex
>between a man and a woman is not as morally bereft as same-gender sex:

MZ:
>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
>>time before the climax.

TP:
>So, in fact, the position to which they switch is in fact morally good
>under your paradigm.  And if the partners do not switch before climax?
>Do you continue to defend heterosexual sodomy on the basis that they
>*could* have switched to a reproductive position, or do you apply your
>venom equally to those who spit and those who swallow?  Or those who
>masturbate, for that matter?

This has been covered in my discussion with Mike Morris.

TP:
>I eagerly await Mickey's version of "I won't come in your mouth."

To your certain consternation, I won't even enter yours, old thing.

>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2938 sci.philosophy.tech:4559
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: FREE WILL 2: Neither a Determinist nor an Indeterminist be.
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:11:19 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc27.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1992Dec12.001525.26891@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <spurrett.90.724001190@superbowl.und.ac.za>
>spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:

>>5) Curious (naiveley  thinking myself to  be at least  a little informed 
>>about theology and the superficial outlines  of comparative religion and 
>>the  like) I attempted to establish what was meant by this:
>
>[Details of Spurrett's request for an explanation deleted for brevity.]
>
>>There was no answer, ...
>
>I did indeed answer.  Perhaps you neglected to read my response.  I
>shall not burden this newsgroup with a repetition, but I will attempt
>to email a copy to Spurrett.
>

There was an answer, although it never made it to my news host.  Apologies 
are extended to Neil Rickert for such abuse as I heaped upon him while 
labouring under the misapprehension that he had not replied.  We are now 
discussing this via email, since as NR pointed out the net version has 
become `tiresome.'
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2964 rec.arts.books:22445
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: morally good...
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:49:44 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.


    It is startling to read Zeleny's advocacy of classical education in our poor
benighted Dew-eyed, Progressive, MTV culture. I suggest, however, that classical
Greek realism also included a healthy dose of metaphysics, implicitly or
explicitly. A lack of metaphysics would and did lead to scholasticism. Here,  
the alert intellectual notes the lack of a theory of human nature as context for
the rather bizarre discussion of sexuality. Human nature, being dependent upon
heterosexual reproduction for its continuence, demands a psychology consistent
with this. With our volitional consciousness (free will) we can, of course,
create a mind/body split and a lifestyle, psychology, philosophy, and culture
based on it. As Virgil sighed, "My flock was lovely: lovelier I." But as British
rock chanteuse Marianne Faithfull so tartly sang, "We've been trying to get high
without having to pay."
    Gentlemen! I can assure you that mental health is basically cognitive
contact with reality and that people who experience left as right and up as
down. etc are crazy as the proverbial loon. And so for homosexuals. Why, after
all, must they be "gay." Methinks the lady dost protest too much. If
heterosexuals called themselves the "happies" we might wonder what they're
hiding. We are biologically heterosexual and psycholgical health demands
cognitive contact with that fact. If childhood misdevelopment causes homosexual
emotions there is a lack of cognitive contact with one's biolgical reality.
Reality is epistemologically prior to emotion. Augustine's "prior certainty of
consciousness" is false. The primacy of existence in the Presocratics,
Aristotle, Thomas, and Rand is true. This is consistent with respecting the
individual rights of homosexuals in a political context but inconsistent with
social toleration. Homosexuals are cookoo, whacko, bananas, bonkers. I don't
care if somebody else fucks squirrels just as long as he is recognized as
psychologicallu unhealthy. "Well, Dr. Freud, we know that little Adolph has a
potential to psychotic schizophrenia, but besides that, is he insane?"
    I mean, come on now, there are enough serious problems without worrying
whether some guy is playing with peckers in the park.
    By gad, I love my humour. Does anybody else?
    
================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dcantor1@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: mine
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 19:49:07 GMT

In a previous article, tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) wrote:

>
>>Can human beings live in a society based on one principle?
>>
> 
>"I am the only creature in the Universe with Free Will"
> 
> 
A society????
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2998 rec.arts.books:22586 alt.politics.homosexuality:8061