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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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 , [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >> *Time:* 2012-08-19, 15:14:47 >> *Subject:* Re: On puppet governors >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>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 [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
