HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 01:59:43 GMT

From article <Bu254w.ECw@unx.sas.com>, by sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill):
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.160709.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
> |> In article <Bu01JK.C4y@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> 
> |> The problem with the analogy to genetics, are merely artifacts of
> |> instantiating too closely with a single representation of an underlying
> 
> But if you don't do this, you lose all the advantages of your
> proposed analogy.  You may end up with a view that no one can
> refute, but this is only because the view has become sufficiently
> vague as to defy refutation.

  Two things come to mind:  first, this, of course, could lead back
to the "explanatory power" as "truth" argumentation.  Second,
it is not as if there aren't more "mechanical" and more "detailed"
ways in which one could address the problem of evolutionary epistemology
that doesn't rely on strictly biological phenomena.  I am, however,
ignorant of the literature available in this area.  I would have to say,
based on what I know and what arguments that have been presented, that
you are correct only insofar as an alternative drawn on other mechanisms
doesn't exist.  If they do exist, then certainly, so long as they remain
within any evolutionary theroy(Darwinian I suppose), they still
maintain a certain ground even by analogy.
> 
> |> mechanism. Besides, I've seen memetic arguments that easily draw
> |> correspondences to mechanisms of inheritence, mutation, randomness and
> |> parts of parts. Look at this thread for example.
> 
> Okay, I'll bite.  Trot 'em out in detail.

Me too.  I would like to see them.

> 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 

"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:23:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>In article <d!vnhpk.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:

>>So in what way is _The_Story_of_O_ extreme?

>If you're at all familiar with this story, and are still asking this
>question, then there's no point in answering you. This truly is a case of
>"if you have to ask, then don't bother". 

I'm familiar with the story, alright.

>Dialogue implies a certain degree of mutual understanding; if this
>understanding is not present, then dialogue is impossible. If you hear a
>story about a woman who is tortured for sexual pleasure (I believe she's
>tortured to death in the end--or at least this is implied), and you ask,
>"why is this story extreme?", then I would say that dialogue with you is,
>indeed, impossible.

If I recall, the story was originally brought up as an example of an
alternative form or expression of love.  The issue of "false morality"
came up, and *that* is what I am asking about.  Certainly it demonstrates
a *different* morality.  Within its own moral structure, what happens to
O is not necessarily "extreme."

What I was trying to point out with my question was that the labels
"extreme" and "false" (or "faulty") are applied based on a moral
structure separate from that of the story.

You are correct, dialogue *does* require mutual understanding.  I'm 
sorry if you missed my point.

>But you're kidding, right? 

Only partly.  Hopefully my explanation here has clarified the serious
point I was getting at.
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary evolutionary
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:58:33 GMT

In article <BtyCGv.Bv5@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>Is it time to entertain the hypothesis that
>Grossman is a prototype AI program with a faulty language module?

I thought it might be Racter run over digitized Nietchze, Rand, 
and the current thread, but then Racter is grammatical.

Come to think of it, maybe Nietchze was an early version of
Racter run on a Babbage Differential Engine.

OK, stop, that way lies Grossman...

-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:38:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.014218.3558@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>From article <1992Sep4.124028.1383@bernina.ethz.ch>, by stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher):
>> Hello world
>> 
>> Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that 
>> exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
>> In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for all kind of ideas.
>> juerg at ethz switzerland  
>
>God.  So Saith Aristotle.
>
>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
>
>"n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop." 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

The logical universe (if it exists).  This may be the same answer,
however.
-- 
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.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:24:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.023239.4899@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
[...]
>  I think you have a vauge understanding of the notion of a "loving 
>God" from theological grounds.  In few instances would one find the
>God of man to be "disinterestedly" loving regardless of what your 
>personal conclusions on the matter may be.

God has no "personal" interests; He cannot gain or lose anything.
This is the sense in which I originally said that God's love for the
world is disinterested.  Any discussion of Christian theology is
irrelevant to my original remarks; I am not speaking from a Christian
perspective (I do note the presence of an intervening party in the
discussion -- I do not think that I am being addressed directly!).  I
regard the Incarnation as a logically incoherent notion; even from a
Christian theological perspective, I find the idea that the "loving"
nature of God starts temporally with the Incarnation to be _extremely_
dubious.  Certainly the God of the Jews (as described in the Hebrew
Bible) exhibits love (and other emotions); the God of the rabbis is
definitely a loving God (among other things).  I would follow
Maimonides, however, and say that the word "love" as used of God is a
homonym of the word "love" as used of human beings; the identity of
the words used at best reflects a figure of speech.


>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
>> Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
>> P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
>> Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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
> 
>"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
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.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:26:39 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep9.100443.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
|> Gary, here's a non-systematic, non-exhaustive list, but should be a useful
|> nexus...
|> 
|> 		-Windsphire
|> 
|> > |> mechanism. Besides, I've seen memetic arguments that easily draw
|> > |> correspondences to mechanisms of inheritence, mutation, randomness and
|> > |> parts of parts. Look at this thread for example.
|> > 
|> > Okay, I'll bite.  Trot 'em out in detail.

I was hoping that you would sketch the details of the alleged
analogy.  I suppose I can wade through a couple of thousand
pages of this stuff if I have to, but I think I have pretty
good grounds for doubting that such an analogy can be achieved.
If you believe it can, this must be because you have in mind
(at least most of) the details of the analogy.  So far, the
arguments I have presented against it have been reasonably
detailed.  Is it possible for you to sketch a positive approach
in similar detail?  E.g., what corresponds to the gene?  What
are its parts?  How do these participate in inheritance?  What
is the analog of mutation?  Does inheritance require some kind
of exterior force or agent (as in the case of concepts)?

-- 
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: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:40:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>In article <_wtn_qk.anson@netcom.com>, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>|> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>|> 
>|> >The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
>|> >it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
>|> >would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
>|> >(although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
>|> >false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
>|> >it were biography).
>|> 
>|> Question:  What is a "false moral standard?"
>|> -- 

>I have observed over time that Randall has a writing style that I
>would call something like "polished".  It is easy to read, and it
>flows quite smoothely.  Indeed, he appears to strive for smootheness
>and readability rather than a stilted or pedantic kind of precision.

You can be precise without being stilted or pedantic.

>In accordance with such a goal he can be seen to use such phrases
>as 'false moral standard' which has a rather clear sense and has
>been used by many before him.  In it, 'false' does not mean 'false'
>in the sense that it is false that 2+2=5.  Rather, something more
>like 'faulty' is meant.  Randall, I presume, knows this, for he
>has used the phrase in its traditional sense.  If he used the
>phrase 'false friend', would he be subject to similar queries?
>I hope not.  'False' can have a number of nuances in English.
>Its use in 'false moral standard' is perfectly acceptable and
>well established.

This begs the question.

Let me rephrase:  What, then, is a "faulty moral standard?"

And:  In what way is _The_Story_of_O_ representative of one?

Your reply seems more a defense of Randall Holmes than a substantive
reply to my question.  I did not attack Mr. Holmes.  I asked what 
should be a simple question.

Or is asking for clarification an attack?
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:40:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.040353.15399@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <d!vnhpk.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>
>>So in what way is _The_Story_of_O_ extreme?
>
>If you're at all familiar with this story, and are still asking this
>question, then there's no point in answering you. This truly is a case of
>"if you have to ask, then don't bother". 
>
>Dialogue implies a certain degree of mutual understanding; if this
>understanding is not present, then dialogue is impossible. If you hear a
>story about a woman who is tortured for sexual pleasure (I believe she's
>tortured to death in the end--or at least this is implied), and you ask,
>"why is this story extreme?", then I would say that dialogue with you is,
>indeed, impossible.
>
>But you're kidding, right? 
>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is my answer, too.  Thank you, Peter!
-- 
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.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:20:39 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Sep13051704@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu> jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu
> (Andy Fingerhut) writes:

>  Your post is a very reasonable one, and I don't mean "reasonable" in
>the Randian sense. Rand was a very poor philosopher, but she had a talent
>for writing stirring stuff that appeals to a lot of (mostly young) people,
>for reasons that aren't hard to understand. If you find romantic capitalism
>and individualism appealing, there's no reason why you shouldn't enjoy
>her writings. However, if what appeals to you is chiefly the realist
>philosophy she presents, it is a relevant comment that Rand's variety of
>philosophical realism is very poorly argued, and marred by a lack of
>understanding of any of the philosophy she denounces. In short, there is
>no reason to read Rand for her philosophy.

Talk about poorly argued!  Content-free arguments of this kind are not
particularly effective.  I think her arguments are quite good, they just
are not written in the academic jargon philosophers use to write for each
other.  If anything, I think that makes her arguments BETTER, not worse.

--Brian




Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:1830 sci.philosophy.tech:3155
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:51:07 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University

From article <Bu22t5.BBp@unx.sas.com>, by sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill):
> 
> This is outside the subject of this news group, but ...
> 
> In article <1992Sep4.041750.18564@a.cs.okstate.edu>, onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> |> 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.
> 
> For example, Jean Buridan (14th Cen nominalist) was not allowed to
> teach *religion* for various reasons.  And that guy (I forget his
> name) a few years ago (was it at Catholic U.?) was not permitted to
> become a member of the *religion* department.  But I don't know
> of any such general prohibitions concerning speaking, teaching,
> or publishing.  Is this in fact true of Chardin?  Do you know the
> real details?
> 

  In so far as the Historical details of this silencing, no I can not
recall from memory the specific details.  However, yes he was indeed
silenced.  Most of his writings were not published until after his death
when it was no longer a matter of religious denunciation.  

  Also, you may find it interesting that in the Dominican order I know
of at least two that were silenced.  First, Meister Eckhart wasn't directly
silenced in terms of being told "Don't publish this or that," but instead
he was told that he could not teach ideas of "noblemen and statesmenship"
to the peasantry, regardless if he was speaking in terms of God, in any
language besides latin.  Since only noblemen and statesmen were capable
of understanding sermons delivered in latin, he was effectively silenced
from the peasantry.  He died shortly after this decision.  Also, another
Dominican was silenced in the year 1989 and his
name is Matthew Fox.  He was forbidden to publish, preach or teach for
the term of one year which he dutifully obeyed.  

   As for other such prohibitions I haven't any that come to mind, however
there are catalouges of such occurences in the Catholic church.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 
> -- 
> 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: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:43:12 GMT

From article <1992Sep7.162304.29891@cis.umassd.edu>, by pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman):
>     O'Connell [danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM], Sep.2
>     asks about Objectivist thought and if it is objective.
> 
>     Objectivism continues the Parmenides-Aristotle-Aquinas line of reality un-
> derstood by reason. It rejects the Heraclitus-Plato-Descartes-Kant-contemporary
> line of chaos, irrationality, subjectivism, transcendentalism, and nihilism. 
> Most philosophy is a rationalization of dishonesty, of faking reality.
>     
> 
>     Objectivism is a radical theory of epistemological objectivity, denying
> that ideas are in reality (as in Plato & Aristotle) and affirming that ideas are
> our mental processing of reality. (Kant & contemp. phil. hold ideas as subject-
> ive).

Looks like you have worked yourself into a bit of a contradiction here.

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
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: What is Love?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:50:40 GMT

From article <1992Sep9.155906.27289@mips2.ma30.bull.com>, by fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper):
> 
> Love helps us manage and overcome these tendencies. It empowers
> us to be ourselves by reinforcing a sense of self control. It reinforces
> equality, not enslavement. 
> 
> fjc

  Yes, in principle I want to agree with this.  HOwever, there are
always accounts of "love" given in such texts as _The Beloved Life
of John Suso_ and in the fiction _The Story of O_.  Now, either these
situations are misnomers, or there is more to the story of love 
than just empowerment over enslavement.

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
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: test
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:57:58 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 02:45:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

[n-deep quotes deleted]

>I'm thinking of a moral (ethical?) standard as a collection of
>propositions about what is good and evil (for some understood end --
>in this case, living a human life).  Falsehood is an applicable
>predicate.  Of course, it is unpopular to claim that there are true
>propositions about good and evil (and I myself do believe that "Good
>for what?" is a legitimate question).  I do believe that there are
>moral (ethical?) truths; it is somewhat difficult to identify them
>precisely, but extreme cases are less difficult to sort out.

So in what way is _The_Story_of_O_ extreme?

[Note:  My asking the question does not mean I think the story is *not* --
 or *is* -- extreme.  I just want to define the standards being applied
 here.]
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)