Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Folk Theories of Meaning
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:35:16 EST
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Summary: logophobia strikes again

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:

MZ:
>>>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?

PC:
>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, and in
>so doing, come to cherish each breath that continues us, for none are
>guaranteed and our continued existence is largely beyond our control,
>and mighty logic is utterly powerless to change that.

Well, Paul, I have a tiny problem with this statement of yours,
insofar as it inspires me to take out my razor-sharp stainless steel
Randall #14 "Attack" knife, and attempt to find out experimentally the
exact market value of the chemicals which comprise your anatomy.  Are
you really saying that my arrogant conviction that I am clever enough
to get away with this sort of stunt should be a sufficient warrant for
me to act on this feeling by snuffing out your life, seeing how by
your own lights I have no reason whatsoever to cherish every breath
that continues *you*?

SB:
>>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.

The last word on this subject was said by Michael Feld; I see no
reason to add to it.

PC:
>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.  The system of arbitration by which the
>rights are adjudicated is "somewhat" reasonable.

But I do have a commitment to human beings!  So do Jeffrey Dahmer,
John Gacy, and Charlie Manson.  Now, how do you propose to arbitrate
between these kinds of commitment, and your own vague, syrupy notion
thereof?  Whose brand of "somewhat" rationality do you wish to follow?

PC:
>Reason can never tell you what is right or important, and there is no
>such thing as a rational decision or rational behavior, since these must
>accept as a premise that a particular outcome or particular constraint
>is 'good' or 'important' and this can never be 'proved.'  I am far more
>prone to use 'intuition' or 'intelligence' than logic which is
>frequently worthless.
>
>Logic and reason are fine.  No need to start deifying them.
 
Michael, where are you?  This case calls for your professional attention!

>Paul Collacchi

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

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