Richard:
with all my agreement so far, would you continue:

2. Have you ever been pregnant?
   if not, do not talk into the   topic!
3. Are you on Medicare? if you are on the 'aristocratic'  ------ (so
called Cadillac) -  governmental health care system, --- don't talk into it!
4. Are you on Social Security? - if you are enjoying some -
(governmental) extra pension, don't talk into Social Sec.
5. Have you ever been a working (struggling) single mom?  - if not, don't
pretend to talk about their problems.
6. Have you ever been unemployed, seeking a job ?
   if not, do not talk into the problem.
             and so on and on.
JM

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

-- 
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