Roger,

Have you ever smoked pot.
If not you are not qualified to comment
Richard

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> 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 <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *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 <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> *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
>> Gé°€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.
>

-- 
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