[SA]
As long as you understand I wasn't saying we
should get rid of "oops" or "aha" or ge-wiz or
lalala. I was trying to encourage a further
description in what these concepts mean, which it
looks like you may have done further on in this post. Good.
[Arlo]
I've done further many times in the past. It's
been Platt who's preferred to reduce what he
disagrees with to glib remarks such as "oops".
Indeed, "Aha!" as only conceived in response to
Platt's absurd reductions (by Krimel, if I
recall) as a way of saying, "if you want to
resort to simplistic monosyllabic caricatures
than "aha!" is more accurate than "oops"". And,
if you read the thread here, you'll see that I
have been doing nothing but calling for Platt and
Ham to explain their "abracadabra! poof!" views.
[SA]
Ok, which Platt seems to suggest in the other
thread is that people need some kind of authority
that tells them or convinces them to be good or
as he said to paraphrase, "change their
attitudes". Something bigger than them. I don't know.
[Arlo]
Sure, from The Power of Nightmares. "Strauss
believed that the liberal idea of individual
freedom led people to question everything—all
values, all moral truths. Instead, people were
led by their own selfish desires. And this
threatened to tear apart the shared values which
held society together. But there was a way to
stop this, Strauss believed. It was for
politicians to assert powerful and inspiring
myths that everyone could believe in. They might
not be true, but they were necessary illusions.
One of these was religion; the other was the myth of the nation." (BBC)
[SA]
I find a "Great Plan" too limiting. I find
"unintended consequence" too limiting. Intention
can connote a 'Intender', but I don't think that
way. Intention to me is the hills guiding the
Allegheny River in a certain direction, but as
geography shifts, the direction can shift.
[Arlo]
In my view, the hills do not intend for the river
to flow in any direction. Certainly, the river
flows as it does in response to its environment,
of which the hills are one part. But where the
river runs, and what shape the river takes, is
unintended. And, a million years ago, it was
unknown where rivers would be, or what form they
would take. The river you see as you walk is the
unintended consequence of the combinations of all
factors in its environment. Had one quake altered
the landscape differently, the river would have
emerged differently (or maybe not at all). Take a
more active example, the event (asteroid,
volcano, whatever) that caused the extinction of
the dinosaurs. Did that asteroid (or whatever)
intend to destroy the dinosaurs? Did that
asteroid intend to bring about the era of the
mammal? If not an "Intender", then what "intended" to make consciousness?
[SA]
Ham doesn't know how to answer a lot of
questions, even about what he says. That's Ham &
Swiss Cheese for ya. I don't know would be a good enough answer for me.
[Arlo]
I gave Ham this out, but he can't say this
because this would preclude him from saying
"you're wrong" to people who do espouse a view he can't ideologically stomach.
[Arlo had asked]
Ask yourself, SA, why do you think Platt feels he
must resort to such blatant lies to mask his
inability to answer these questions?
[SA]
I don't know.
[Arlo]
I think you're too kind. :-)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
