From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Folk Theories of Meaning (was re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym)
Organization: Boise State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:46:02 GMT

In article <184352@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.134024.1624@sol.cs.wmich.edu>,
>brewer@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Steve Brewer) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov16.122343.17501@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>|> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>|> >
>|> >If you don't feel that being bound by
>|> >logic is a *moral* obligation, would you still have any basis for a
>|> >reasonable expectation that your tooting your car's horn at a bunch of
>|> >Samoan Hell's Angels does not *mean* your informed consent for them to
>|> >peel off your skin and rip out your heart?  Do you have a glimmer of
>|> >understanding that your human rights are not worth the market value of
>|> >the chemicals that comprise your anatomy, *if* there be no such things
>|> >as matters of fact about meaning?
>|>
>
>Our lives are not worth the market value of the chemicals which comprise
>our anatomy.  Life is snuffed out constantly, without sentiment and for
>no reason.  Each of us will go this way.  The issue, as I see it, is not
>to go about letting our stupid, little logical egos tell us how
>important we are, but to *get* how absolutely unimportant we are,

to the Whole, sure

 and in
>so doing, come to cherish each breath that continues us,

i.e., realize how important it is? (to ourselves?)

 for none are
>guaranteed and our continued existence is largely beyond our control,
>and mighty logic is utterly powerless to change that.

The life expectancy of the beneficiaries of logic (who are not
necessarily the ones who work at it) is longer.

>
>|> It seems to me that this statement mixes several immiscible issues.
>|> Let us remember that human rights are based on a *committment* to 
>|> logic.  We shouldn't believe that logic is fundamentally 'right' or
>|> something.  Most evidence I've seen indicates that very few people
>|> use logic or fundamentally rational thinking for most decision-making.
>|> 
>
>Quite right.  I might point out that human rights are base on a
>comittment to human beings -- not to logic -- the underlying motivation
>for which is quite illogical.

One's commitment to oneself is quite logical, and can be extended to
those who benefit one.

  The system of arbitration by which the
>rights are adjudicated is "somewhat" reasonable.
>
>Reason can never tell you what is right or important, and there is no
>such thing as a rational decision or rational behavior,

This is a remarkable assertion.

 since these must
>accept as a premise that a particular outcome or particular constraint
>is 'good' or 'important' and this can never be 'proved.'

Have you ever heard of an axiom?  (This is not a reference to Randism,
by the way).

  I am far more
>prone to use 'intuition' or 'intelligence' than logic which is
>frequently worthless.

Please explain the exact difference between intelligence and logic =
reason.


>
>Logic and reason are fine.  No need to start deifying them.

How on earth could we deify Logic?  Investigation reveals that His
existence is prior to ours...

:-)

>
>Paul Collacchi



-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta