HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)

In a resonse to :
>talking of how we feel. (I don't think it is wrong to say that emotions are 
>feelings - I just don't see what we add to our understanding of 'emotion' 
>by saying it.)

Peter Cash writes:
>I'm more than a little mystified by this. I'm not just confused about what
>you're saying to clear things up; I'm confused about what is being cleared
>up. When we talk about emotions, are we talking about feelings? Why or why
>not? I don't know how to think about this. Am I supposed to be able to
>think about it?


CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () responds:
>Well, one thing: someone introduced the expression "emotions are feelings", 
>and that seems to me to be a very UNhelpful thing to say. But then I 
>thought that what was really meant by the expression was "love, hate, etc. 
>are feelings", so I restated the position I was leaning towards, namely 
>that when we talk of love, we are not merely talking of how we feel. But 
>that's not quite right either, is it? 

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.  

I have more to say , but I have to go to a meeting.  

fjc 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:14:14 GMT

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
as anything (which is, of course, as metaphysically significant as grammer and
rat's asses) else. On the other hand, Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff 
has an audio lecture on the objectivity of grammer. Linguistic analysts may
object but, then again, there are those rat's asses. Will the linguistic anal-
ysts get beyond the rat's asses? Stay tuned. And may you all have a good ex-
ence this exceptionally fine evening. As for me, it's The Al Defino Trio playing
stimulating jazz at The Scuttlebutt.
    I flunked grammer in the 12th grade. Maybe this is a psychological project-
ion. NOT!
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 17:39:27 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

...
The problem being, of course, that love does not "heal" in and of itself.

What does this mean?

Dano
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi ()
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: The Clam of Reason Ltd.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:13:49 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep4.021332.13110@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com writes:
>I've been victimized by a philosophical question of course--I didn't think
>that "What is love?" could be as tricky as "What is mind?"; but I was
>wrong. The two questions are isomorphic in that they both ask about an
>entity that one is tempted--almost compelled--to think _must_ exist
>precisely because one knows how to use the word. 

Yes, but here's the tricky one: _why_ are we tempted - almost compelled - 
to think there must be some entity 'love'? Why does our familiarity with the 
use of the word lead us into temptation?

>And of course we do know how to use the word--we know how to talk about
>love. Does that mean there's not mystery about love, no questions to be
>asked? No, just that it's not the kind of mystery that can be cleared up by
>answering the question, "What is love?"

Another tricky one: If there is some mystery about love, and if it isn't of the 
kind that can be cleared up by answering the question, What is love?, then 
- of what kind is it?


>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Chris Burman, cburman@abo.fi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:02:33 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Sep1.092733.15142@abo.fi> CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () writes:

>I think the point is that when we talk of emotions, we aren't merely 
>talking of how we feel. (I don't think it is wrong to say that emotions are 
>feelings - I just don't see what we add to our understanding of 'emotion' 
>by saying it.)

I'm more than a little mystified by this. I'm not just confused about what
you're saying to clear things up; I'm confused about what is being cleared
up. When we talk about emotions, are we talking about feelings? Why or why
not? I don't know how to think about this. Am I supposed to be able to
think about it?

Could you possibly provide some examples to help me find the way? 


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivists
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:35:48 GMT

In article <2SEP199215442825@reg.triumf.ca>, vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
>Ah, autumn. The days grow shorter, the leaves turn colour,
>and the young objectivists return to their keyboards...
    
    And as neighbors burn their leaves and the parties turn indoors, aren't
you grateful? I've been to wine and cheese poetry parti...excuse me, readings
at Stanford. I know your type and it wasn't pretty then. And, of course, a few 
rational students encourage the whole class. She almost threw me out of the 
poetry class for wondering why ovens justify Sylvia Plath. Existence, however,  
asserted itself and I enjoyed the palm trees and the two outdoor cafes at the
student center. It was California, after all, and I could deal with it.
From: wes@uf.msc.edu (Wes Barris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: meta-physical speakers???
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: wes@msc.edu
Organization: AHPCRC, Minnesota Supercomputer Center


Posted for a friend...

Hi,

I am a member of a small study group in Minneapolis, MN.  This study group
is a part of an organization called the "Association for Research and
Enlightenment".  We are interested in finding a speaker to address up to
100 people on any of the following topics: meta-physical, new age, or holistic
healing.

I am interested in hearing any recommendations from anyone.  Any additional
information such as contacts, costs, etc. would be most helpful.

Thanks,

Lori
-- 
===============================================================================
Wes Barris                                                   PH: (612) 626-8090
Minnesota Supercomputer Center                               Email: wes@msc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: WHAT love is
Keywords: Re: WHAT love is
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:41:00 GMT



I think that love is the desire to return to, recognition of oneness 
on some level......the level creating the manifestation. This is of 
course coupled with a desire to reach a chemical equilibrium or steady
state -).


Gravity is love. :)

Thanks to Leo for pointing out the traps of the binaries.
How soon we forget.

Wm T.

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:00 +0000

pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes..

>RE: Kranowski's Aug.21 message:

>    "We are the subjects and cannot reach the objects," says K.

>    "Strawberry fields. Nothing is real. Strawberry fields forever,"
>    sang The Beatles.

>        "I swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no
>        hell," sang Laura Nyro.

>        "You're not really someone else," sang The Rolling Stones!"

>        "I need a little something to mellow my days, cause I'm
>        getting tired of acting in life's one-act play," sang Savoy
>        Brown.

>        "We've been trying to get high without having to pay,"
>        sang Marianne Faith-full full.


>        "Reality is sneakin' up on you. It's gonna get you wherever
>        you go," sang Johnny Winter.

"And the Princess and the Prince discuss
 What's real and what is not....
 It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden...."

...sang Bob Dylan. An apt metaphor for sci.philosophy.meta perhaps.

Leo
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:27:17 GMT

In article <1207@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.103950.16097@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>>In article <1193@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
>> writes:
>>
>>   >I believe there were two very strong pure mathematicians who were convinced
>>   >Nazis, (Teichmuller and Bieberbach) and this is the best I can think of.
>>
>>  Gentzen! Think of Gerhard Gentzen.
>
>I didn't know that he was a serious Nazi. But is he as important as T. and B.?
>All I know that he did was use transfinite induction to get consistency of
>arithmetic and nobody seems to rely on this result that I can tell. Is he
>actually much heavier duty than I know?
>
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt

Gentzen is heavy-duty.

-- 
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: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:03:42 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Sep1.165720.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
|> 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 
...
|> 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.

Look, I just don't know enough about this stuff (and I certainly don't know
enough biology!) to either attack or defend these things on my own.  I can
try to get some references and maybe some summaries, but I just ain't fully
competent here to argue one way or the other.  I'll pass on your suggestion
to someone who is and see if I can get a detailed response.
-- 
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
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:47:42 GMT

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?

The theory appears very attractive to me, especially when applied to
the philosophy of science; it allows us to give up justificationism
without going all the way to relativism.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Existence
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:21:09 GMT
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 19:13:10 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Randall Holmes) writes:

 >Hampshire's point is, I take it (long time since I last read him too),
 >to get rid of the idea that things like love, respect, hate, contempt,
 >etc. are 'merely' feelings (some kind of inner sensations, or whatever),
 >and that seems to me an important thing to do. 
 
 Exactly!!!  I don't think that love is actually a feeling at all.  It
 is a _policy_.  So is hate.

Hmmm. Perhaps love/hate/etc are not "merely" feelings, but I do not
see how one could deny that love can manifest itself in feeling, i.e.,
that one *feels* love. Also, I do not think you can truly separate
love and hate.

Apparently several people here believe love to not be a feeling.
Perhaps we are using several unarticulated definitions simultaneously,
and hence the confusion.

To say that love and/or hate is a "policy" would imply to me that
one had control over what one felt, i.e., love or hate; I do not
think this is the case, unless one uses a defense mechanism and
this would imply dealing with the feeling that gets felt, rather
than controlling at the source, what one feels.

I think that it is possible of course, to determine what one's
attitude towards a feeling or set of feelings can be and then
one can act from that basis.

  So the 
 >>question, "Am I in love?" is really to be interpreted as a request for 
 >>help in deciding what one's feelings are to be, not what they are.

It seems that one is deciding (in this case) what one's *response*
to those feelings should be. The question "Am I in love" could be
two fold then: first: what are my feelings? and second: based on
what I believe my feelings to be, what is my response?

Note that none of this need be "rational", that is our motivation
can be based on "feeling" rather than intellect.

>Again, when does one ever _decide_ what one's feelings are?

Good question. Perhaps when it becomes important for one to do
so. I think it is important to discriminate here though, between
feelings and opinions.

Certainly at some un/sub conscious level, we *know* what our
feelings are. Whether we know and/or ALLOW that knowledge to
creep into consciousness is another question.

Dano
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Evolutionary evolutionary
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:30:52 GMT

Don't any of you pinheads know that Heraclitus' metaphysics of change is the 
limit of evolutionary epistemology. Existence changes. Existence evolves.
Same thing. Epistemology exists. Existence exists. Epistemology is existence.
sounds pretty heavy duty, some you guys can get into. Of course, there is
more, there is always more. Permanence also exists, within some limit, whetheryou like it or not. Talk with Parmenides about his metaphysucs of permanence.
And then..........then you are ready to visit the master of they who know. I
speak, of course, of none other than, here he is, Aristotle. Or Ari, as a
friend called him. Aristotle, of course, integrated permanence and change.
And so, we have the modern world of today insofar as we once were capable of 
rationally dealing with reality. And, in conclusion, existence, altho beer as
one of the things which is more (always more) [who cares about always?] {al-
ways exists as much as anything else} Everything exists and everything exists equally. 
	And now that the assembled multitude has temporarily fastened its mind, 
as we shall call that feeble attempt called evolutionary epistemology, upon 
objective reality, let us be aware that man is a self-made soul, the master
of his fate, the captain of his ship, and known to the maitre'ds in the finestresataurants. Ahhh, existence. And the assembled multitude went down from the 
mountain and talked among themselves. After much bickering each person went
of his fate, the captain of his ship, and known to the maitre'ds in the finestresataurants. Ahhh, existence. And the assembled multitude went down from the 
mountain to the lowlands below the mountain. The lowlands went down to a deep
river. The assembled multitudes went into a submarine and decended into the
briny deep below the river's surface, below the land, the low lands, below
the mountain, where they had learned about existence. Meanwhile, the submer- 
sible vessel trained its powerful laser light upon the rusted steel door on
the coraled surface. The huge door groaned open and the submarine glided thru.The passengers embarked on a moss-covered pier in a very large area with air.
No one could explain it. They often wondered about their relation to the ex-
ternal world but no one could explain that either. Some hoped that they 
would, someday, learn about the mountain and the lowlands. They called them-
selves evolutionary epistemologists. Some said they were in Plato's cave but
choruses of "boos" drove them away. But the mountain beckoned a few who ven-
tured beyond the steel door under the river winding thru the lowlands at the
bottom of the mountain. And, in a penthouse under the broad firmament of 
stars, existence was calm. "It is good." And it was so.  
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:1734 sci.philosophy.tech:3075
From: rdsand@bb1t.monsanto.com (reality does what it wants...)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:22:02 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <BtuLv5.J22@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> 
> In article <dyfl.715236462@munagin>, dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
> |> 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?
> |> 
> |> The theory appears very attractive to me, especially when applied to
> |> the philosophy of science; it allows us to give up justificationism
> |> without going all the way to relativism.
> |> 
> |> --
> |> 	Daniel Lam
> |> 	Melbourne, Australia
> |> 
> |> In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
> 
> My wife's dissertation was on this subject (under David Hull, Arthur
> Fine, and Paul Teller).  I can probably provide something of a partial
> bibliography.  She beat up on the whole idea pretty violently, though
> it does not seem to have affected Hull's view much.
> -- 
> 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

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?  

Thanks!
-- 
Rodney Sanders
rdsand@ccmail.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Paper topic help.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:00:08 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <Brennan.J.Murphy.53-250892124728@hesmac20.hesburgh.lab.nd.edu>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu (Brennan J. Murphy) writes:
|> I am a Junior Philosophy major at the University of Notre Dame.  In my
|> Metaphysics 424 classs, I am required to to write 2 8-10 page papers
|> dealing with any aspect of metaphysics. There are 3 restrictions: 1)the
|> papers have t be about Metaphysics, 2) they have to be original papers and
|> 3) they have to be not merely descriptive but critical.
|> Can anyone offer suggestions as to what would be an interesting topic and
|> where I can find background information on the topic?  I am interested in
|> Alvin Plantinga's work and as of now I would like to focus on some of the
|> questions he deals with.
|> Thanks for your help,
|> Brennan

As I recall, Alvin was doing some very interesting stuff on the
problem of evil.  This may or may not count as metaphysics for you.
You might look what Alvin's position is on realism of various
sorts (perhaps especially with reference to the issue of possible
worlds) and compare this critically to the views of others (David
Lewis, in particular).  I picked on Alvin in "Formalization,
Possible Worlds, and the Foundations of Modal Logic" (_Erkenntnis_
12, 1978, 305-327) and I recall he felt the criticism was unfair or
misinterpreted his position.  This might give you a starting point.
-- 
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
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 18:47:56 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Daniel Kranowski) writes:

                                           And when a person's efforts
 attain the object of his attractions, I say he finds pleasure.

This is probably the only thing I would take exception with in
your article (I find myself agreeing with the rest of it); it
seems to ignore the fact that occasionally we do attain the
object of our attractions, only to be severly disappointed:
the more importance we have placed on the object, the deeper the
disappointment upon attaining it, when it does not fulfill our
previous notions of what it would provide.

Dano

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta