I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or "public consensus"

I think that the good is that which enhances life.

So IMHO smoking pot would not be good.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52
Subject: Re: The logic of agendas


Hi Roger,

That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the 
attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail 
to see how the discussion advances through them.

There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to 
linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don 
Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree 
that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these 
linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse.

Say somebody comes to you with a set of "hundreds of problems" and you lend a 
listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and 
is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep 
consideration.

2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of 
desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already 
jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he 
just wants to be "taken seriously" and feel control, with you jumping though 
all of their "problems and questions", necessitated by solidarity, respect, 
politeness expectations of discourse.

Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, 
publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private 
discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no 
significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up 
to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when 
agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). 

Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure 
"self", as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are 
as semantically slippery as they have always been.

My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really 
consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: "No. 1 is 
beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- 
or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, 
if you want some measure on such problems." Of course, I take this with a large 
grain of salt.

But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for 
yours.




On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all
 
The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle
called "final causation". where an object is PULLED forward by a goal.
By what should be.
 
This is the opposite of "efficient causation", as in determinism,
in which objects are PUSHED forward.  By what is.
 
 

Hi Roger,

It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor 
concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see 
how the discussion advances through them.

There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to 
linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible 
computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to 
Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political 
axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control 
can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and 
expose how this marks discourse.

Say somebody comes to you with a set of "hundreds of problems" and you lend a 
listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and 
is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep 
consideration.

2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of 
desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already 
jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he 
just wants to be "taken seriously" and feel control, with you jumping though 
all of their "problems and questions", necessitated by solidarity, respect, 
politeness expectations of discourse.

Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, 
publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private 
discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no 
significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up 
to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when 
agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). 

Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure 
"self", as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are 
as semantically slippery as they have always been.

My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really 
consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: "No. 1 is 
beautiful and No.2 is ugly, bloated, overdose of messages and problems 
discourse fluff, posing as No 1) . It's easy, if you subscribe to training this 
faculty of your intuition, capacity for aesthetic judgement provides instant 
output, instead of assuming blindly you can tell truth from lie. You can't, you 
can just better your statistics. If you can't distinguish at all, then you have 
no taste- or at least lack some + a sense of style and should acquire more, if 
you want some measure on such problems." 

Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt and usually give people 
benefit of the doubt, as a sort of tribal commitment.

But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for 
yours.

PGC :)

 
 
 
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-19, 15:14:47
Subject: Re: On puppet governors





On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:



On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:



On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their own agendas.




We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction, and minimize 
self-dissatisfaction. This can be programmed in very few lines, but needs a 
very long time to bring sophisticated being like us. 



But doesn't concept or computation of "self" makes this statement on self's 
agenda much less clear than it looks?

Is "self" some conceptual cartoon or program, like individual isolated humanist 
"bag-of-flesh + brain soup", a consumer in a market with bank account, a 
career, set of personal experiences, a class idea, is it a tribal idea, or is 
it some esoteric notion of "Gaian world soul", a family notion etc.? 



It is more like a control structure. The self is really defined by the ability 
of some program to refer to their own code, even in the course of a 
computation, like an amoeba can build another similar amoeba. Or like when you 
look into a mirror and recognize yourself. It is the third person self, like in 
"I have two legs". Then the math shows that a non nameable deeper self is 
attached with it, and obeys a different logic (the soul).


Satisfying oneself, in nature, is mainly drinking when thirsty, eating when 
hungry, mating, peeing, etc. 
But with its big neocortex, the man has made things more complex. By 
incompleteness (or akin) he is never fully satisfied, want more, get addicted, 
refer to authorities, and then to forget how happiness is easy.





Convincing, but I am less sure. Particularly because 1p perspective has 
apparently many selves (the list I mentioned: "bag of flesh, consumer, career, 
family, citizen etc.") and the distinction between "self" and "other" is 
subject to transformation. Sometimes boundaries are insurmountable and 
sometimes they vanish. Time influences this perhaps.

But according to you, building on incompleteness, if we forget/ignore G?el and 
comp enough, happiness is easier :) This is not good marketing.

m



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to