Interesting post, Twirlip. I haven't got the time available at the moment to really respond to some of the thoughts you've brought up (although I hope to sometime in the next few days), but I CAN answer the question you asked. Or, rather, good old Wikipedia can :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_to_the_chase Francis On 18 Jan., 19:01, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this is worth explaining, even if it is not worth pursuing > very far (perhaps only adding to the "noise" for which I have already > been censured by more than one moderator). > > After I was subjected to a verbal onslaught here a day or two ago > (only a day or two after I joined), after the initial surprise and > shock and anger had passed, I reflected that it might be a kind of > "test". > > By this I meant two different things, which however might be related > to one another. (One thing that I didn't mean, by the way, was that it > was any kind of deliberate initiation or hazing ritual!) > > I had no intention of posting about this, until today, when almost the > first thing that greeted me after I got out of bed was another such > verbal onslaught, from a different member of the group.(I would have > been far less bothered if it had only been the same person again.) > > I don't think I coped with the latest onslaught too badly; but, as I > said, at least two moderators criticised me for my response, and I was > threatened with a ban if I persisted. > > If I hadn't been ordered not to post any more in that thread (even > though it was started specifically to rant at me!), and promised not > to do so, I would naturally be posting these thoughts there; so, the > moderators will presumably consider this whole thread as more "noise", > and possibly even, if not a banning offence, then a reason for > returning me to moderation. > > I think it is worth taking that risk, because I think that this is > philosophical information, not noise. > > The first sense in which I thought that a personal attack on me in a > group like this might be a "test" was that it might be incumbent on me > to regard it as a challenge to accept the assault in a philosophical > spirit (in a familiar everyday sense of "philosophical"), and not to > respond in a petty egotistical way, or with too much self-pity (not > that I think that self-pity is altogether a bad thing), but to be > rational and ethical, and to see what I, at least, might learn from > the encounter. > > For instance, even if I might not have done anything to deserve such > an attack, might it not nevertheless be a kind of karma? (I use the > word very loosely.) And, even though the person hounded me, and > accused me of stalking and harassing him, and this was ridiculous, > might each of in some unconscious way have been shadowing the other? > (Again, no precise use of language is here intended.) > > But such questions are mainly for me to think about, and not to post > about here. > > What I think does make it worth taking the risk of posting this > article is that the second sense in which I thought those events (and > today I thought this morning's events) might be a "test" is one which > I think has meaning for more than just me. > > I have long wondered how one tests ideas about minds, given (what for > me is axiomatic, although others may dispute) that the scientific > method is not applicable. I have brooded for a long time about the > need for a movement in psychology and ethics which is progressive in > way analogous to the way in which science is progressive, yet (at > least for me) cannot possibly be literally considered to be > scientific. > > I don't want to get banned for excessive verbosity, and this article > is getting a bit long already, so I'll cut to the chase. [Where on > Earth does that phrase come from?] > > We all have ideas about minds, persons, selves. One of my reasons for > being here, probably my main reason, and probably also one of the > reasons why many others are here, is to test out such ideas in > discussion, and learn new ideas, and modify ideas in discussion. > > Of course, we also have ideas about other things (also to be subjected > to the same trial by dialogue), but it is only ideas about "minds, > persons, selves" to which what I'm saying here is at all relevant. > > The test is: how do such ideas survive when things go "wrong" in the > group? Can they even help to put "wrong" things "right", or do the > "wrong" things have to be banned? (Presumably /some/ do, such as spam, > or deliberate trolling.) > > When conversation results from something going wrong here, is such > conversation only a distraction, is it only "noise", or can some of > it, at least, be seen as a part of the total philosophical enterprise, > perhaps in analogy to the way that engineering is related to science? > > Can Minds Eye own its shadow? > > (OK, here goes. I am hoping that this will lead to a discussion, not > to a ban from discussion, but my luck in such matters is bad, so I > can't be too hopeful, just a little bit brave. Prepare the hemlock!)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en.
