John, 1. Yes 2. No 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No 6. Yes and so on. Richard
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
