From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:50:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
X-Posted-From: reg.triumf.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1993Jan9.014100.2029@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>,
 jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu rants gratingly...

[...much deleted in the name of serenity...]

>	Hmmm ... so the more embellishments to human evolution
>	you can imagine, the more accurate the picture eh ? 
>	Again, pure ego. PROVE that we are less than haphazard
>	evolutionary products ... RIGHT NOW ... no bullshit !
>	We have had 5000 years of civilization to prove that we
>	are somehow special - and still nothing. I consider this a 
>	decent random sample. 
> 
>	Yea, let's abandon all that tiresome crap about logic or
>	education. That what we share with protozoa is obviously
>	superior to logic. Why put out any effort when the answers
>	to the universe are just waiting for interpreation by
>	our crude emotional states. WHAT A CROCK !!! 
> 
>	What the hell makes you think that emotional states are
>	more informative than logical analysis ? Emotion is
>	nothing but a cheap firing of nerves. Reason requires
>	education and effort. Your position is obviously that
>	of an anti-intellectual. It is purest laziness and deserves
>	no consideration whatsoever.
> 
>> 
>> | I submit that we are nothing but slightly improved monkeys. 
>> 
>> Speak for yourself, James!
>> 
>> 		-Alan
> 
>	If you can't find parallels - strong parallels - between
>	the social/intellectual behaviors of apes and modern
>	man then you should not even be posting here on the
>	net. Read Jane Goodall. We are them - in far more ways
>	than we are interested in revealing.
> 
> 
>-- JM 


Gadzooks. Someone give this kid a valium.

Listen, son: no matter how much we learn, the world will continue
to be more profound than we know. It is perfectly valid to say
that we are quite similar to apes. However it is equally valid to
say that this doesn't make us trivial in the vast universe about us.
Consider, for example the anthropic principle. If you weren't 
conscious you wouldn't know anything about the universe. Now
what is the nature of a universe that has noone in it to know it's
there? Can such a universe have any meaning? These are not questions
that can be dismissed as easily as they first appear.

    By all means we should hone our analytical skills. But there is
much to be learned from other forms of inquiry. The consciousness-
centred reality postulated by Berkeley, and attested to by eastern
mystics is no more nor less verifiable by honest inquiry than the
physical world of western science, difficult as that may be to accept.
This should at least hint to you that we have a seriously limited
perspective of the nature of the world, and much to learn about the
nature of consciousness. Keep a clear distinction between skepticism
and prejudice. It's a fine line to walk, but the less you presume about
the ultimate nature of reality, the more insight you'll be liable to
acquire.

    And that's why lots of people with different perspectives should be
posting to alt.consciousness. Now why are you posting here?

> 
==========================================================================
We are definitely here as representatives of the     %    Pete Vincent
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages Lumin-      % Disclaimer: all I
aries and Other Professional Thinking Persons,       % know I learned from  
and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!% reading Usenet.