HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:02:10 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
: Love is what you think it is. It is the maximisation of your
: personal value judgement. It's feeling good.
Hmm, when a sadistic racist beats up people he considers "lower" he may value
that as "high" and feel very good about it.
No, I wouldn't call that love.

: If you can't tell the difference between feeling good and bad then the
: question and answer are both unnecessary and meaningless for you.
A common effect:
When you don't feel it, the answer is meaningless for you.
When you feel it, the answer is unnecessary for you.

(a hint for the thread about existence? :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 03:59:39 GMT

From article <1992Sep2.125759.16731@mips2.ma30.bull.com>, by fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper):
> 
> There seems to be a great deal of effort in this thread to divorce the notion of
> love from that of feelings or emotions. The gist of this effort, if you do not
> opt for simple selfishness as some here do, seems to consist  
> in reserving a place for love that is beyond the "fleeting" character of "feelings
> and emotions". Since the notion of God is at best uncomfortable, somone 
> came up with "policy", which has the character of behaviour maintained
> over time and circumstance.  This is an intersting and, I think, important
> discussion in a group where much of the dialogue centers around issues
> concerning what we can and cannot know about something being called
> "objective reality".  I think the confusing expressed by Peter Cash is
> an approprate response to this thread,  and I would answer affirmatively
> to his question,  yes, we should be able to think about this.  

Perhpaps what is most important is not the simple divorcing of emotions
from love, but the accepting of other emotions as love as well.  For
some reason, love as happiness and love as "being burned" are priveleged
and this privilege is subject to revision.  It seems to me that whenever
love is view upon this very dichotamy, of happiness and "being burned,"
we are dealing more with the "healing" aspects of love from shame.  The
problem being, of course, that love does not "heal" in and of itself.

> 
> fjc 

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Subject: Re: The Cogito is mistaken
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:53:29 GMT

From article <9208211944.AA14290@lenny.kaman.com>, by rob@KAMAN.COM (Rob Vienneau):
> Why Descartes' cogito argument is mistaken:
> 
[...]

Yeah, so?


hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:30:59 GMT

In article <l9q57hINNrga@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(ken bell) writes:
>
> I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
> a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
> moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
> on humankind.
>
>That's interesting. If Love isn't a feeling which informs 
>one's existence, actions and response, what is it? How
>could Love not be a feeling?
>
>Dano
>

Love is the policy of regarding the good of another person as
essential to your own.  A feeling may lead you to love someone, but it
is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for love.  (It is
difficult to imagine loving someone for whom you feel nothing, but it
is not incompatible with the definition -- the non-sufficiency of the
condition is more obvious).
-- 
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: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Existence
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:56:44 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

I was just skimming, and saw this:

daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski) writes:
>In article <l9q63nINNriv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>>                                Also, doesn't saying that
>> humanity can't know what it is imply an objective knowledge
>> of what humanity is that humanity itself can't know?

I don't see why it should.  Saying that humanity can't know what
it is can be reformulated as:
        There does not exist a model of humanity that human beings can
        understand.
The assumption that this means
        There exists a model of humanity that human beings cannot
        understand
doesn't seem to follow in a straightforward way.  [The truth or
falsity of the proposition isn't self-evident to me.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:18:46 GMT

I have been reading this newsgroup for a couple of weeks now.
I find it quite interesting.

One thing I suppose we can all take as a starting point for discussion
is that Mr. Grossman's posts exist.  And how!  (*grin*)

Actually, allow me to introduce myself.  I am the owner of a mailing
list called 'Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy'.  We
discuss the philosophy of Ayn Rand in an organized, polite, and
rational forum.

To subscribe to my mailing list, just drop me a line at:

jwales@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu

--Jimbo Wales

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:12:18 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep3.011414.25769@cis.umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> In article <BtyrJE.7yt@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >
|> >Dare I flatter myself by supposing that this is in response to my
|> >previous posting concerning Mr. Grossman's grammar?  I must concede
|> >that he has indeed submitted a grammatically flawless posting on
|> >this occasion.  He should be encouraged to persevere.
|> 
|> This is sad, truly sad, enough to make a philosopher weep. I don't give a 
|> rat's ass about grammer. Of course, grammer and rat's asses. And exist as much
                   ^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^

Or spelling either.  That's it -- stick to your principles!  (I note
that you haven't even managed to *copy* the correct spelling.)

|>     I flunked grammer in the 12th grade. Maybe this is a psychological project-
|> ion. NOT!

"And I'm *proud* of my ignorance!  But I expect all the rest of you to
pay close attention to whatever it is I'm trying to say -- and if you
can't reconstruct some valuable thoughts from my incoherent ramblings,
well, that's just a measure of *your* ignorance."  (You are free to use
this sentiment, but you'll need to mangle the grammar and spelling so
that it appears to be authentically from you.)
-- 
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: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.165720.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
>Gary, 
>
>> The term "evolutionary epistemology" has quite a technical sense in
>> contemporary philosophy.  I do not think Teillhard DeChardin would
>> be particularly relevant to this, but he might be worth looking at for
>> another perspective on the concept of evolution.  Some of the primary
>> criticisms of evolutionary episteomolgy (as I recall) center around
>> the looseness of the analogy to current evolutionary theory and
>> (in particular) to the role genetics plays in that.  What is the unit
>> of selection?  What is the mechanism of transmission?  Etc.  Critics
>
>I'm not current on the technical contexts of this term, but, why not
>memes as the unit of selection? Granted, you may have to do some 
>refinement on what constitutes an atomic meme, but it seems proponents
>of memetics have mapped out some interesting corrollaries. For this
>perspective, Gregory Bateson is a good introductory tangent. I found
>his work useful on an individual level, scaling it to the macrocosm
>of societal and cultural agendas would be an interesting exercise. 
>Some of his concepts of in _Ecology of Mind_ are implicit in psychological
>theories like cognitive dissonance, and the role of attention in theories
>of modern cognitive psych. (if you allow attention to be a scarce resource
>-some days more than others- that memes compete for within the constraints
>of their environments). Symbiotic memes, parasitical memes? You bet! 
>
>Mechanism of transmission...a trivial answer would be communication. More
>interesting are the way some memes move through the population as if they
>were 'extra' dimensional structures passing through an informational plane.
>(Visualize a cone passing through a plane... starting as a point, in a 
>few individual minds -mixing metaphors shamelessly- and radiating out into
>a circumverence, or vortex ... esp. interesting it is a more complex shape,
>which could modulate across this surface for a few decades (centuries?)). 
>
>In any case, it seems these constructs could provide ample heuristics for
>exploring analogic resonances with evolution theory. 
>
>> nowadays is that you can't simply gesture in the direction of
>> Darwin and mutter things about "selection", "survival", and
>> "fitness".  The roots of genetics and molecular biology run deep
>> under the current theory
>
>Perhaps this too was just a 'gesture in the direction' of evolution
>(I like your wording), but I think they're are some facets that could
>spark various pragmatic research programmes. Indeed, it is interesting
>to look at the implicit metaphors that underly epistemology (Shades of
>Zeno)... one of which seems to be: all epistemology stands in some
>relation to 'the myth of things as they actually are'.
>
>		-Windsphire
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:09:31 GMT
Organization: Hmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(ken bell) wrote:
 
   I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
   a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
   moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
   on humankind.

I replied:

  That's interesting. If Love isn't a feeling which informs 
  one's existence, actions and response, what is it? How
  could Love not be a feeling?
 
Ken continues:
 
 Well, love certainly gives rise to feelings and is often accompanied by 
 them, but I don't think they are the essence of it; nor need love diminish 
 when feelings wane.  Feelings may bring you to the point where you can 
 begin to love and experience its joys; but mature and authentic love, I want 
 to say, isn't dependent upon the feelings.  Consider the feelings associated 
 with 'falling in love'. It is the feelings that lead us to do whatever must 
 be done to win the beloved's affections; but once won, the mere feelings 
 alone cannot perpetuate the love relationship. 
 
 Granted, then, they are (or may be) necessary; they are not sufficient.  
  
I'm still not sure I get it. It seems as though you are
saying Love is "above" feelings somehow, that part of it
can be expressed  in feelings (i.e., falling in love), 
but that Love itself isn't a feeling.

So, what (IYO) is Love? A meta-feeling? Is your opinion that
love is an emotion and feelings are un/conscious
expressions of emotions?

Perhaps my own definition of love would have to include
the idea of recognition of some part oneself in the "other".

Certainly in the idea of 'falling in love' that you mention,
we all look for those positive and especially negative 
characteristics of personality that were inherent in our
primary care-givers, in turn, we internalized some of these
characteristics and seek them in others.

Dano
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi ()
Subject: Re:WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: The Clam of Reason Ltd.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:00:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In various articles CBURMAN and holmes:

CB>Hampshire's point is, I take it (long time since I last read him too),
CB>to get rid of the idea that things like love, respect, hate, contempt,
CB>etc. are 'merely' feelings (some kind of inner sensations, or whatever),
CB>and that seems to me an important thing to do. 

holmes>Exactly!!!  I don't think that love is actually a feeling at all.  It
holmes>is a _policy_.  So is hate.

Something like it - I'm just not sure whether 'policy' is the word to use here.
I would like to say that love goes deeper than policies. If you love someone,
your love will play a part in the way in which you understand that other person
(you see his/her actions in the light of your love, as it were). Now with policies
it is (usually) the other way around: because you see things in a certain light 
you decide upon a certain policy. (I think...)

CB>(But this is not to say
CB>that there isn't room for all kinds of sensations too. The point is that
CB>love doesn't consist in having certain feelings.) I'm uneasy about
CB>talking of 'a decision to feel or value',

holmes>I don't think one _can_ "decide to feel"; one might have more freedom
holmes>to decide to value, but I'm also dubious about that.

"Decide to feel" does sound fishy. "He decided to feel guilty." - hard to imagine a
natural context for it. (Interestingly enough a sentence like "He decided that he was 
indeed feeling guilty" sounds much more natural.)

"Decide to value" sounds just as queer as "Decide to feel".

CB> but if I understand this
CB>correctly, Hampshire wants to point to the aspect of an undertaking
CB>inherent in love.(O.K. Bouwsma thinks of (religious) faith in a similar
CB>way. Maybe Kierkegaard too. I always felt that this is why faith and
CB>love seem so closely connected.)

holmes>Faith is also a _policy_ (often but not always a stupid one), not a
holmes>feeling.

I do think you'll have to tell us more about what you mean by 'policy' here,
and how a man's faith could be a stupid policy.  (I'm not disagreeing with you,
mind. Just a bit lost.)

holmes>The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
holmes>above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
holmes>opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
holmes>or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu



Chris Burman, cburman@abo.fi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:59:03 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep1.132202.4442@bb1t.monsanto.com>, rdsand@bb1t.monsanto.com (reality does what it wants...) writes:
|> Am I to assume that this theory of knowledge ties in closely with Popper's 
|> hypothetico-deductive method of science? I'm assuming it must based on 
|> Daniel's comment above regarding "justification"...
|> 
|> Gary, was your wife's dissertation ever published?  I would be interested 
|> in taking a glance at it if it's available...If so, could you post a 
|> reference?  

I don't recall many of the details, but I don't think it has all that
much to do with Popper.  Toulmin was the prime mover in this stuff.
The only publication that Carla ever emitted from her dissertation
is in the PSA proceedings for 1982.  I'll come up with the reference
(maybe tomorrow).  She says she wasn't interested in getting a
reputation for publishing purely critical stuff and went on to
topics in the area of sociobiology.

-- 
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,sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:52:01 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep1.034101.2490@a.cs.okstate.edu>, onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
|> From article <dyfl.715236462@munagin>, by dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam):
|> > Can the philosophers out there enlighten me regarding the current
|> > status and state of research in evolutionary epistemology, as
|> > advocated by Popper, Bartley, Campbell, et al?
|> 
|> 
|>   I would recommend the writings of Pierre Teillhard DeChardin if
|> you are interested in "spiritual" evolution, which would, under
|> DeChardin's system, include epistemology.  In particular, see
|> _The Divine Millieu_.  Although he is not current, it may add another
|> aspect to your researches.

The term "evolutionary epistemology" has quite a technical sense in
contemporary philosophy.  I do not think Teillhard DeChardin would
be particularly relevant to this, but he might be worth looking at for
another perspective on the concept of evolution.  Some of the primary
criticisms of evolutionary episteomolgy (as I recall) center around
the looseness of the analogy to current evolutionary theory and
(in particular) to the role genetics plays in that.  What is the unit
of selection?  What is the mechanism of transmission?  Etc.  Critics
feel that "evolutionary epistemology" simply turns out to be vague
metaphor offering little, if any, explanatory value or enlightenment.
The problem with appealing via analogy to evolutionary theory
nowadays is that you can't simply gesture in the direction of
Darwin and mutter things about "selection", "survival", and
"fitness".  The roots of genetics and molecular biology run deep
under the current theory
-- 
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,sci.philosophy.tech
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 04:17:50 GMT

From article <Bu01JK.C4y@unx.sas.com>, by sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill):
> -- 
> 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 for the review of evolutionary epistemology.  I think it should
clear up a lot of questions regarding it.  However, as a note on this
topic, it was, in fact, Toulmin who lead me to researches on Pierre 
Teillhard DeChardin.  DeChardin's theories are not so foriegn to
evolutionary epistemology.  IN terms of the metaphysics, the standard
Christian Ontology and Epistemology exist within the writings of DeChardin
with one notable exception.  I say this simply because we should find in
the writings of DeChardin the metphysical impact of the Divine on 
epistemology.  The notable exception is that DeChardin feels that
the scientific evidence for evolution supports what he sees as a 
general epistemological advance of ideas throughout history.  That these
ideas should have been affected, or "weeded out," by a means like
that of Darwinian evolution is in tact.  The exception from the run-of-the-
mill epistemology is that DeChardin views the world in a spiritual
evolution as well and that our sciences and our ideas shall lead to
a general unification of people within the divine creator.  In this 
resepct, this is in direct opposition to God/individual separation.  For
DeChardin this gap is only connected, unlike in mysticism, by means of
education and advancement in theory.  Evolution is his method of proof
for this "closing of the gap."  Needless to say, the Catholic church
was not exactly pleased with his theories and forbid him to speak or
teach or publish.  He was denied a proper Jesuit burial when he died.
His influence on the Jesuit sect, however, is immeasurable.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Recent Traffic
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:58:02 GMT

From article <Btnut9.G1K.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price):
> How did this newsgroup suddenly become talk.esoteric.bull-session?
> I'm all for esoteric bull sessions, but lately I'm learning a lot less
> from this newsgroup than I've become spoiled into expecting to learn.
> 
> Perhaps threads such as "what is love" could be shunted 
> to talk.philosophy.misc? 


Perhaps you could share something with us.  We might like to learn from
you.  Have a topic you care to discuss?

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
 
"Our business is to continue to fail in good spirits."
                                       Robert Louis Stevenson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Tom
> 
> ******************************************************************************
>  Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
> ******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.native