On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:26, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard and Bruno Marchal,

IMHO if pot enhances life, it is good --at least for that activity, such as in treating cancer.
I suppose relaxation would also be good, not sure.
But the danger is that pot if smoked regularly may become addictive,
which is not good since it diminishes life.

There are no evidences for this. On the contrary. The oldest woman ever in the world, when asked what is her secret of health, said that she smokes one joint everyday since the age of 13. She was 118 years old. She dies recently ... in good health, said the doctor.
A case is not a statistics, but the statistics confirm this.

Bruno




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:09:01
Subject: Re: Good is that which enhances life


On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Roger,

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

Richard,

Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute?
If not you are not qualified to comment.

But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal.

For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression.

There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube.

I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument.

But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition.

Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics.

Bruno






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
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鰀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- l...@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- l...@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- l...@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- l...@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- l...@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- l...@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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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