date:20121215


On 12/16/2012 1:18 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
if you are a black male in America you are six times more likely to go 
to prison than a white male - and that this fact is not because white 
males don't break the law as much as black males.


No, it is because of the disparity caused by a lack of education, IMHO.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051228145956/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf

" In 2002, 93.2% of prisoners were male. 10.4% of the black males in the 
United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison 
by year end, as were 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.2% of white males."


I notice in this paper an absence of discussion of the statistics 
of indictments and acquittals per classification, which might show some 
more interesting patterns from which we might draw conclusions.


What does skin color have to do with? Why are we even noticing it?

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/16/2012 1:05 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


 What is the difference that makes a difference between "being a
victim (of some oppressive action)" and "being at a disadvantage".
The
same outcomes obtain!


It's the framing. Calling someone a victim implicitly frames them as a 
loser, and object. Being at a disadvantage is a neutral term 
describing the effect on society without injecting personal fault. 
It's the simple fact rather than a judgment of victim-victimizer. 
Again, I'm not saying there was any other way that an empire like the 
US could have prospered in the past, I only observe that it is not 
prospering now and this is clearly why.

Hi Craig,

Indeed, but how framings are selected is an implicit form of 
framing itself! But, waitafrakinminute, why is the US in decline now, again?


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/16/2012 1:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
t's not about how a person acts, it's about where the person is 
allowed to act. 


Allowed, how? Allowed implies "not-allowed" as well. Please 
understand that I am not defending conservatism! I am defending logic 
and reason!



What country clubs they have access to. How long they have to tour 
Europe after college before they get come home and apply for six 
figure jobs.


OK, Line up people that exist in those classes and fire away. 
Problem solved!



--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/16/2012 12:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What can be said about people in power who oppose compromise with the 
other side? Can we say that it is the uncompromising obstructionists 
who are causing problems and replace them with people who will not 
necessarily vote with their party?


"Off with their heads!" ~ Red Queen.

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge

On 12/16/2012 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:43:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> If you have a group of people getting rich while other people
are in
> bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social
> mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath
> several other countries in social mobility.

Hi,

 OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate
predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has
fallen
in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the
failure of
some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of
that fall in ranking?

The failure to recognize Supply-Side economics as the transparent 
fraud that it was is to blame in my opinion.

How exactly did S-S economics fail to achieve exactly what they 
where proposed to be able to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that 
argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering 
barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as 
lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater 
flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, 
consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services 
at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side 
economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.
The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that 
government tax revenues are the same at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax 
rates. The tax rate that achieves highest government revenues is 
somewhere in between. Whether it is worth the corresponding decrease in 
economic growth that is often assumed by supply-side economists to 
accompany such a rate increase is a policy question."

They don't make that case here, but you can see from the graph that 
the new, lower post-war pattern begins in the mid 80s.

No. I see a pattern that begins in the 1960's. The Korean and 
Vietnam wars had trivial economic consequences compared to WWII, so 
"post war" starts mid 1940's. There is a big slump 1940 -> 1960, then it 
levels off and the Upward and Downward P.o.M. numbers get real close and 
start converging 1985'ish. I was in the US navy round that time.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-is-now-a-myth-2012-6

"One of the most distressing aspects of the state of the US economy is 
the decrease in social mobility.
It is much, much harder now than it used to be for Americans to improve 
their circumstances.
In other words, if Americans are born poor, they're overwhelmingly 
likely to stay poor.
Similarly, if Americans are born rich, they have a much better chance of 
staying rich than someone born poor or middle class.
No one minds inequality as long as one's station in life is a function 
of one's own decisions and effort.
When inequality becomes the luck of the draw, however, if becomes much 
more profoundly unfair.
America's social mobility is now not only one of the lowest in the 
country's history--it's one of the lowest in the first world."

What changed in the US that might have been a main contributing 
cause to the decrease? Check a side by side with a chart of the US GDP 
percentage spent by the government on non-Constitutionally mandated 
activity since 1940 to 2000. Interesting!

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the
knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass
judgement on people that did not have our current capacity and we
can claim to not be bigoted? NO!


Who said anything about us not being bigoted? That doesn't mean that 
conservatives were right on slavery, or Civil Rights, or Women's 
Suffrage, or the Cold War, or McCarthyism, or Vietnam, or the War on 
Drugs, or Trickle Down economics...I am hard pressed to find a single 
example of Conservative policies that were not ugly and prejudiced 
failures which were subsequently exposed as worthless and swept under 
the carpet eventually. Even trying to factor in my presumed bias - and 
some extra to cover my unpresumed bias...what country in the world 
today is an example of the success of Conservatism? What policy works? 
I'm sure that there must be some. What are they?

Hi,

Try this. Consider a number of cities in the US that have been 
governed by predominantly Progressive policies and compare then, apples 
to apples, to a number cities that have been governed Conservatively 
with one stipulation: that Progressive policies are those that 
Progressives are in fact in favor of and Conservative Policies are those 
that are defined by Conservative people and decide for yourself which 
kind of city you with to life in. If we allow one side to define the 
terms of the argument, who is going to win the argument?


How does one overcome the problem of a insufficient sample 
 in StatMech?


I don't wish to make decisions or reason for you.



Are we to accept the indictment of our possible ancestors for
crimes that they may have committed to cast a shadow on our lives?
Really?


It's not a matter of placing blame. Again - anyone in their place 
would likely have done the same thing. The issue is how to move 
forward given the inevitable consequences of what happened up to this 
point.


What choice did you or I have in the nature and behavior of our
respective possible ancestors? I had just as much choice as I have
of the color of the skin I was born with! So what does the
"lottery of life" have to do with things?


Aha, now you know how it might feel to be judged on the color of your 
skin or your sexual orientation.


OK. I rest my case.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Absolutes are absolute, they do not depend of circumstances nor
situation.


In reality though, there is nothing that does not depend on circumstances.


OK!

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Craig,

All of these points are instances of taking a particular 
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from 
it. It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply 
wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself into the context with you are 
evaluating and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of 
universal ethical principles, then those judgements and implications 
cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations to behave in 
one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad. Rationalization, 
pushed too far, allows anything. 


Or supports any status quo and condemns any change as destruction.  So 
I guess slavery was right in U.S. in 1850 and only suddenly became 
wrong in 1861.


Hi Brent,

How is that? Are you going to invoke the Grue paradox?

  I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in 
Afghanistan, even though it's bad here.  So it's rational when you 
agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't.


Brent


No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women 
from learning to read in the US? What "Power" is needs to be precisely 
defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:40:58 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>  It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a non-faithful 
>> sample of a population is to bias any possible prediction. Why are you 
>> focusing on some partition of some equivalence class: "white, green, pink, 
>> yellow, purple, black,... or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what ever some 
>> finite list you can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of Reality? I am 
>> not interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever that cannot 
>> possibly be true!
>>  
>
> I don't understand the complexity. The US is the richest country because 
> it had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and 
> relatively no real political threats on any geographic side. Is that not 
> true? The beneficiaries of that wealth are almost exclusively white 
> Europeans with many customs and values in common. Many who did not benefit 
> from that prosperity were also white Europeans but disproportionately they 
> were not. Is that controversial?
>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> What about the Chinese, 
>

You mean the indentured servant Chinese that were worked to death building 
the railroads?

> or, the Icelanders or the natives of Bora Bora, are they exempt from a 
> debt of social justice to some group of people currently living merely 
> because they had ancestors that had vast natural resources, slaves and 
> immigrants to extract them, and relatively no real political threats on any 
> geographic side.
>

That's up to them. Scandinavia is hugely privileged I would say, Bora Bora 
natives, I would guess not so much. It's not about deciding who else has to 
be moral for you to be moral, it's just about acknowledging that if you are 
a black male in America you are six times more likely to go to prison than 
a white male - and that this fact is not because white males don't break 
the law as much as black males.

> It depends of the measure of "vast". What difference should it make where 
> one is from or what one's particular ancestors are when we can arbitrarily 
> define some past behavior of that class of people to have been criminal in 
> a retroactive way? If one looks hard enough, any class of people has been 
> victimized by some other! This fact makes the entire thesis of social 
> justicefall
>  apart at the seams.
>

This is 100% bogus talking points. Look at the statistics. Listen to what 
actual people say. If you are wearing your ancestry on your face, police 
look at you different. They pull you over for no reason. They question you 
on the street. Who other world for non-whites in the US. Don't get me 
wrong, I'm not saying that it surprises me or that non-whites are better 
than whites and made saintly by the baggage of being a minority in the US, 
I'm just saying that if you can't see that it is clearly a different an 
unequal world for people of color (POC), then you're kidding yourself.

I gotta go to sleep but I'll leave you with Louis CK talking about being 
white as my last word tonight: He says it better than I could.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY 

Craig

>  Or are you saying it's true but meaningless?
>
>
> I am saying that it is "not even wrong". What I am saying is that 
> arguments that assume any sort of revisionistic or reverse determinism must 
> be treated very carefully. They are allowed under very special 
> circumstances, such as those that Mitra talks about, but in general 
> situations, not at all.
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/K-Smo5Ac0uYJ.
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.

Re: How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?


On 12/15/2012 3:20 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at.


Yes, iff that consensus has a simple rule: No contradictory fact 
can be hidden by some physical means.




As politics shows, however, the public is divided into
liberals and conservatives, who in principle can never agree.
because one bases his judgment on a moral  standpoint
(is it fair ?) and the other on arithmetic (we can't afford it).
Heart vs. mind, in short.
But subjective truth is both.



Indeed!

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows


On 12/15/2012 6:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



Watch the whole thing, at least for context.


Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as 
bad in that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded 
than he was in the past, although maybe he's just making common ground 
with Penn.


Still, they are both project the stereotypical ugly American attitude, 
loudly explaining how the world should run. They're wrong in 
underestimating the problem of explosive wealth inequality and Beck's 
whole blackboard geopolitical reductionism is grotesque to me.


Anyhow, if you want some opposing video fare, have you seen the Rachel 
Maddow election night video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE


It's three minutes. I'm generally not much happier with Democrats than 
Republicans, but she lays out some reasons why there might have been a 
difference between a Romney win and an Obama win.


I have seen it. I thought Maddow was trying hard not to "spike the 
football"... I frankly don't have much use for the Maddow's or the 
O'Reilly's of the world. They are "HOINFODAMAN".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jimb7PoXVQE


BAM! Look at that Chevi Go!


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows

On 12/15/2012 6:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Conservatives indeed generally resist most
(but not all) change because the changes
are emotionally based rather than logically based,
and so often do more harm than good.
And waste money.

You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women
the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those
'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of
God, the bible, and the divine right of kings?

Hey Brent!

OK, we now have good enough reasons to "reeducate them people". Are
you trying to be a guard at that camp that I might possibly need to
bribe? I grew up as a son of "Bible Thumpers". I have a small measure of
knowledge of what the world looks like through those eyes. Your white
wash is a bit too broadly brushed!

We will have to wait to see if I am right or not,
but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare
will be at least a financial catastrophe.

It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national
health care, which costs only half as much per capita.

Where is that shown to be true? Take a look at the chat at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

You will see the US at the top of the chart of PPP. (the purchasing
power parity (PPP) per capita). OK, now compare a normal measure of the
life expectancy of those countries. You will see something interesting.
Those countries that spend a lot PPP-wise tend to correlate to having
capitalisitc econimic systems and those that tend to the low end of the
PPP ranking tend to have non-capitalistic or anti-capitalistic
economies. Why is that?

The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to
get the insurance company lobbyist on their side.

The Democrates held the House, Senate and Presidency from
2008-2010. What prevented them from passing laws that prevented lobbyist
pressure in those 2 years??? I guess it wasn't so important... Outlaw
lobbying while you can if you are going to complain about it! I got no
dog in that hunt. I am interested in all facts, not rationalizations
that are based of cherry-picked particular facts and outright neglect or
ignorance of others.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:50:08 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > You won't be a victim, but you will be at a disadvantage if you are 
> > trying to live and prosper in a Conservative world which focuses on 
> > the way things were rather than they way they are now, or could be, or 
> > should be. 
> Hi Craig, 
>
>  What is the difference that makes a difference between "being a 
> victim (of some oppressive action)" and "being at a disadvantage". The 
> same outcomes obtain! 
>

It's the framing. Calling someone a victim implicitly frames them as a 
loser, and object. Being at a disadvantage is a neutral term describing the 
effect on society without injecting personal fault. It's the simple fact 
rather than a judgment of victim-victimizer. Again, I'm not saying there 
was any other way that an empire like the US could have prospered in the 
past, I only observe that it is not prospering now and this is clearly why.

Craig
 

>
> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fXIqhgCpWN4J.
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>  Can you answer my question?
>>  
>
> Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant 
> culture. 
>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that identifies 
> them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you?
>

Lakoff seems to be on to something when he says that conservatives 
represent the view of the strict father oriented family. Which gibes with 
the whole 'pathology rooted in fear and aggression' diagnosis in that study 
I quoted.  

>
>  The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it easy' or 
> 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a white male in 
> the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever lived, and I 
> recognize the problems that might pose to others outside of my group and 
> how important it is to address those problems and participate with those 
> others as equals to the extent that I can.'
>  
>
>
> OK, being born into a class automatically places a burden on one's 
> life or otherwise coerces a person to act in a certain way? Really? Is this 
> an absolute fact? Care for a minority report on that?
>

It's not about how a person acts, it's about where the person is allowed to 
act. What country clubs they have access to. How long they have to tour 
Europe after college before they get come home and apply for six figure 
jobs.


Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QYV1w-m-5E8J.
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:52:53 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > Why do they always seem to stagnate into polarization? 
>
>Because people stop talking to each other honestly and frankly. 
>
> > Is that what typically happens? 
>
>Yes, so long as one side or both accept that the people that do 
> not agree with them are "wrong" or "evil" or _insert your favorite 
> derogatory adjective here_ and cannot be reasoned with and must be 
> "dealt with". 
>

What can be said about people in power who oppose compromise with the other 
side? Can we say that it is the uncompromising obstructionists who are 
causing problems and replace them with people who will not necessarily vote 
with their party?

Craig
 

>
> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/r0d5jkTJGwsJ.
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:43:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > If you have a group of people getting rich while other people are in 
> > bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social 
> > mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath 
> > several other countries in social mobility. 
>
> Hi, 
>
>  OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate 
> predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has fallen 
> in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the failure of 
> some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of 
> that fall in ranking? 
>

The failure to recognize Supply-Side economics as the transparent fraud 
that it was is to blame in my opinion.

They don't make that case here, but you can see from the graph that the 
new, lower post-war pattern begins in the mid 80s. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-is-now-a-myth-2012-6

Craig



> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/9cAZUnK8fn8J.
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why do they always seem to stagnate into polarization? 


  Because people stop talking to each other honestly and frankly.


Is that what typically happens?


  Yes, so long as one side or both accept that the people that do 
not agree with them are "wrong" or "evil" or _insert your favorite 
derogatory adjective here_ and cannot be reasoned with and must be 
"dealt with".


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You won't be a victim, but you will be at a disadvantage if you are 
trying to live and prosper in a Conservative world which focuses on 
the way things were rather than they way they are now, or could be, or 
should be.

Hi Craig,

What is the difference that makes a difference between "being a 
victim (of some oppressive action)" and "being at a disadvantage". The 
same outcomes obtain!


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism



On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:10:16 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>> 'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, 
>>> and that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, which is 
>>> what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems 
>>> like you are saying that it is pointless to have any political view at all 
>>> because morality is an unknowable mystery.
>>>
>>>Hi Craig,
>>>
>>> Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, Glen Beck, Dan 
>>> Ariely...
>>>
>>>  
>> Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get into that 
>> so much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel West, Bill Maher, Rachel 
>> Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or Sam Harris (although mainly I 
>> disagree with him on Free Will, not sure of his other politics as much). 
>> Glen Beck, Rush, Ann Coulter... umm. I only hope that they are born 
>> non-white, non-Christian, and poor for their next 2000 lives. 
>>
>>  
>>  
>> Ah, "not a cause of some wrong"... Is it OK to be "projectively 
>> bigoted"?
>>
>
> Not sure what you're saying. Bigotry is always a projection, isn't it? Is 
> bigotry OK? It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, but it isn't a 
> useful or attractive trait as far as I can tell.
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Ethics is my second favorite subject within Philosophy! I would like 
> to see West or Maher or Rachel Maddow, etc. held up to the same scrutiny as 
> those that they cast upon others. The same goes for Newt or Bachman, or 
> Phelps. I can link you Youtube videos of each of those people making 
> statement that can not be seen as anything other than bigots, but I hope 
> that you will not demand that I spend my time doing that..
>
> Is what you wrote above a good enough reasoning to make an absolute 
> claim that any form of bigotry is "bad behavior", what should be avoided? 
> Isn't such a good indication that we can have some hard rules. Things go 
> sideways when we bring in "conditions" and "situations" that allow us to 
> rationalize some forms of bigotry to be "OK". 
>

What you see as bigotry won't look like bigotry to me though. Interesting 
synchronicity from another (uncharacteristically political) debate I've 
been having on Quora about parents spanking their kids. This video is 
George Lakoff (who you just mentioned yesterday) explaining why liberals 
see conservative irrationality as obvious in both opposing abortion and 
promoting the death penalty while conservatives see liberal protection of 
the worst criminals as inconsistent with no protection for unborn children. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5f9R9MtkpqM

He talks about the importance of framing and how it shapes our neurology. 
Still listening - nothing new to me really, but good to hear.



>  
>  
>  
>>  What makes any person or group of persons to make absolute judgements?
>>
>
> Does that include those making the absolute judgements on those they 
> perceive as making absolute judgments?
>  
>
> Absolutes are absolute, they do not depend of circumstances nor 
> situation. 
>

In reality though, there is nothing that does not depend on circumstances.
 

>
>   
>
>>  How can they imagine for themselves the absolute knowledge of Truth, and 
>> yet, they with their finite computational capacity, dare do so. Hubris! 
>> Behold, Light-bringer!
>>  
>
> I don't think it takes a Lucifer or Phoenix to see that abolishing slavery 
> at all costs was a better option than preserving it at all costs.
>
>
> Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the 
> knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass judgement on 
> people that did not have our current capacity and we can claim to not be 
> bigoted? NO!
>

Who said anything about us not being bigoted? That doesn't mean that 
conservatives were right on slavery, or Civil Rights, or Women's Suffrage, 
or the Cold War, or McCarthyism, or Vietnam, or the War on Drugs, or 
Trickle Down economics...I am hard pressed to find a single example of 
Conservative policies that were not ugly and prejudiced failures which were 
subsequently exposed as worthless and swept under the carpet eventually. 
Even trying to factor in my presumed bias - and some extra to cover my 
unpresumed bias...what country in the world today is an example of the 
success of Conservatism? What policy works? I'm sure that there must be 
some. What are they?
 

> Are we to accept the indictment of our possible ancestors for crimes 
> that they may have committed to cast a shadow on our lives? Really? 
>

It's n

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have a group of people getting rich while other people are in 
bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social 
mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath 
several other countries in social mobility.


Hi,

OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate 
predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has fallen 
in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the failure of 
some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of 
that fall in ranking?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a
non-faithful sample of a population is to bias any possible
prediction. Why are you focusing on some partition of some
equivalence class: "white, green, pink, yellow, purple, black,...
or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what ever some finite list you
can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of Reality? I am not
interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever that cannot
possibly be true!


I don't understand the complexity. The US is the richest country 
because it had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to 
extract them, and relatively no real political threats on any 
geographic side. Is that not true? The beneficiaries of that wealth 
are almost exclusively white Europeans with many customs and values in 
common. Many who did not benefit from that prosperity were also white 
Europeans but disproportionately they were not. Is that controversial?


Hi Craig,

What about the Chinese, or, the Icelanders or the natives of Bora 
Bora, are they exempt from a debt of social justice to some group of 
people currently living merely because they had ancestors that had vast 
natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and relatively 
no real political threats on any geographic side. It depends of the 
measure of "vast". What difference should it make where one is from or 
what one's particular ancestors are when we can arbitrarily define some 
past behavior of that class of people to have been criminal in a 
retroactive way? If one looks hard enough, any class of people has been 
victimized by some other! This fact makes the entire thesis of social 
justice 
 
fall apart at the seams.



Or are you saying it's true but meaningless?


I am saying that it is "not even wrong". What I am saying is that 
arguments that assume any sort of revisionistic or reverse determinism 
must be treated very carefully. They are allowed under very special 
circumstances, such as those that Mitra talks about, but in general 
situations, not at all.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Can you answer my question?


Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the 
dominant culture.


Hi Craig,

Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that 
identifies them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you?


The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it easy' 
or 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a white 
male in the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever 
lived, and I recognize the problems that might pose to others outside 
of my group and how important it is to address those problems and 
participate with those others as equals to the extent that I can.'


OK, being born into a class automatically places a burden on one's 
life or otherwise coerces a person to act in a certain way? Really? Is 
this an absolute fact? Care for a minority report on that?



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did
know better, and that those people were Progressive. Again,
you might disagree, which is what I am asking. If you
disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems like you are
saying that it is pointless to have any political view at
all because morality is an unknowable mystery.


Hi Craig,

Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette,
Glen Beck, Dan Ariely...


Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get
into that so much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel
West, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or
Sam Harris (although mainly I disagree with him on Free Will, not
sure of his other politics as much). Glen Beck, Rush, Ann
Coulter... umm. I only hope that they are born non-white,
non-Christian, and poor for their next 2000 lives.




Ah, "not a cause of some wrong"... Is it OK to be
"projectively bigoted"?


Not sure what you're saying. Bigotry is always a projection, isn't it? 
Is bigotry OK? It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, but it 
isn't a useful or attractive trait as far as I can tell.


Hi Craig,

Ethics is my second favorite subject within Philosophy! I would 
like to see West or Maher or Rachel Maddow, etc. held up to the same 
scrutiny as those that they cast upon others. The same goes for Newt or 
Bachman, or Phelps. I can link you Youtube videos of each of those 
people making statement that can not be seen as anything other than 
bigots, but I hope that you will not demand that I spend my time doing 
that..


Is what you wrote above a good enough reasoning to make an absolute 
claim that any form of bigotry is "bad behavior", what should be 
avoided? Isn't such a good indication that we can have some hard rules. 
Things go sideways when we bring in "conditions" and "situations" that 
allow us to rationalize some forms of bigotry to be "OK".





What makes any person or group of persons to make absolute judgements?


Does that include those making the absolute judgements on those they 
perceive as making absolute judgments?


Absolutes are absolute, they do not depend of circumstances nor 
situation.



How can they imagine for themselves the absolute knowledge of
Truth, and yet, they with their finite computational capacity,
dare do so. Hubris! Behold, Light-bringer!


I don't think it takes a Lucifer or Phoenix to see that abolishing 
slavery at all costs was a better option than preserving it at all costs.


Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the 
knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass judgement 
on people that did not have our current capacity and we can claim to not 
be bigoted? NO!
Are we to accept the indictment of our possible ancestors for 
crimes that they may have committed to cast a shadow on our lives? 
Really? What choice did you or I have in the nature and behavior of our 
respective possible ancestors? I had just as much choice as I have of 
the color of the skin I was born with! So what does the "lottery of 
life" have to do with things?


 Maybe rationalizing bigotry into something OK or even acceptable 
is not a nice move!



Sometimes there are moments when it comes down to that.


Really? So there are conditions where it is OK to hate certain 
people just because they have some look or smell or live in a house 
bigger than mine or ... about them? Or that they say strange things that 
we might not agree with?


It doesn't take infinite wisdom to see that having a handful of all 
powerful wealthy overlords rule over billions of people living in 
various states of alienation and poverty.


OK, what are the names of these "all powerful wealthy overlords" so 
that we may go and do "direct actions" against them? I have some 
interesting skills... ;-)




I'm not saying these kinds of things weren't inevitable or that those 
who rule are any worse than any other people who might have ruled instead.


How about we figure out ways to prevent potential "all powerful 
wealth overlords" from ever being born by genetically engineering a 
desire to be all powerful and wealthy and overlord? WE can do that you 
know! We just make it so that every one is equally smart, so no one can 
have any advantage over any other person. What then is the maximum 
intelligence that is necessary to survive as a human being and not be 
predisposed to being a "all powerful wealthy overlord"? Idi Amin 
 was not that smart... I

Re: Progressives and social darwinism

2012-12-15 Thread meekerdb


On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Craig,

All of these points are instances of taking a particular evaluational frame, making 
it absolute, and issuing judgements from it. It is what is known, to some, as 
chronocentrism. It is simply wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself into the context with 
you are evaluating and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of universal 
ethical principles, then those judgements and implications cannot be seen as anything 
more than rationalizations to behave in one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad. Rationalization, pushed too far, 
allows anything. 


Or supports any status quo and condemns any change as destruction.  So I guess slavery was 
right in U.S. in 1850 and only suddenly became wrong in 1861.  I guess preventing women 
from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here.  So it's rational 
when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't.


Brent

--
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Stephen P. King 
>>>  
>>> Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
>>>  
>>
>> Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid 
>> talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. 
>> Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a 
>> politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right 
>> Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist 
>> idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no 
>> reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in 
>> science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.
>>  
>> Dear Craig,
>>
>> Please link some examples. Let me present you with a counter-example 
>> to your claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might 
>> consider Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree...
>>
>>  
>  "[By 1994] "Newt World" was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National 
>> Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich 
>> campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, 
>> National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and 
>> Freedom Foundation. 
>>
>> Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh 
>> and with Christian Coalition groups. [...] 
>> [...]
>>
>  Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to 
> textbook, which urges challengers to *"go negative" early and "never back 
> off". They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because "important 
> issues can be of limited value". *The book suggests looking for a "minor 
> detail" to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good 
> example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it 
> counsels candidates to consider the consequences: "Does it help, or at 
> least not harm, efforts to raise money?" Mr. Gingrich has called the book 
> "absolutely brilliant". 
>
>  Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document, 
>
> ... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control", in 
> which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, 
> tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For 
> example,* it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay, 
> sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors"*. (LA Times, 
> 12/19/94, pages A31)"
>
>   (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html)
>
> I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly 
> Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part 
> of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he 
> insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok.
>
> Craig
>  
>
> Watch the whole thing, at least for context.
>

Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as bad in 
that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded than he was 
in the past, although maybe he's just making common ground with Penn.

Still, they are both project the stereotypical ugly American attitude, 
loudly explaining how the world should run. They're wrong in 
underestimating the problem of explosive wealth inequality and Beck's whole 
blackboard geopolitical reductionism is grotesque to me.

Anyhow, if you want some opposing video fare, have you seen the Rachel 
Maddow election night video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE

It's three minutes. I'm generally not much happier with Democrats than 
Republicans, but she lays out some reasons why there might have been a 
difference between a Romney win and an Obama win.

Craig

> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C-_HI6e25pAJ.
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.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread meekerdb

On 12/15/2012 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

> Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.

John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.

> I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is 
proposing to
explain.  Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it 
sends him
to Washington. 

As John Clark has said people just can not help themselves, in order to express vague 
flabby philosophical ideas personal pronouns simply must be used to hide their vacuous 
nature at their heart. John Clark is going to rephrase the above by excising the 
cancerous pronouns "suppose Bruno is in Helsinki and Bruno steps into a transporter and 
it sends Bruno to Washington". Already much of the mystery is gone and things are much 
clearer, but there is still ambiguity about the nature of the transporter. If the 
transporter is a airplane then when Bruno goes to Washington Bruno is no longer in 
Helsinki, however if the transporter is a duplicating machine then when Bruno goes to 
Washington Bruno remains in Helsinki.

> That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in the transporter again 
and it
sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back to Helsinki and repeats this 
process
many times.  Eventually Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the 
transporter seems
to be random and just sends him to Washington or Moscow at random with 
probability 1/2.

Brent Meeker just said that the machine would send Bruno to Washington AND Moscow many 
times,

Once for each start from Helsinki.

and then in the very next sentence Brent Meeker says that the machine would send Bruno 
to Washington OR Moscow;

I wrote, "Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the transporter seems to be random and 
just sends him to Washington or Moscow."

and if Bruno had seen wmwwmwmmmww...mwm then Bruno has certainly seen Washington AND 
Moscow. Of course this absurdity

What's absurd about visiting Washington and Moscow many times, always starting from 
Helsinki.   I'll bet there are several Finnish airline pilots who have done exactly that.  
I think you must be listening to voices in your head, instead reading what's written.

can be covered up, and that's where personal pronouns come in, although John Clark 
thinks the disguise doesn't work very well, lipstick can't brink a corpse back to life 
and personal pronouns can't give focus to bad ideas.

And John Clark is confused about what direction Brent Meeker believes one should look to 
understand this issue, from the present to the past or from the present to the future. 
John Clark believes that the important thing is that no matter how many iterations are 
done all those Bruno's remember being Bruno in Helsinki long before Bruno had even seen 
a duplicating chamber, and that's why all of them, although different from each other, 
are all equally Bruno.

Did I say there was a duplicating chamber??

Brent

  John K Clark

--
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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12

--
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows

2012-12-15 Thread meekerdb


On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Conservatives indeed generally resist most
(but not all) change because the changes
are emotionally based rather than logically based,
and so often do more harm than good.
And waste money.


You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up 
lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives 
opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings?



We will have to wait to see if I am right or not,
but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare
will be at least a financial catastrophe.


It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which 
costs only half as much per capita.  The Dems had to compromise by mandating private 
insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side.


Brent

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:23:47 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 4:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:50:36 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I beg to differ. 
>>>  
>>> My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
>>>  
>>> "Don't just do something.Stand there." 
>>>  
>>>  
>>
>> That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of 
>> inherited privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than 
>> the ruling minority of the world be compelled to agree?
>>
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Ah, the chestnuts of Social Justice theory. So are we bound and 
>> shackled to a position in life by things over which we individually have no 
>> control? No, not ever! 
>>
>
> There is a difference between being conscious of your position and of 
> other people's position and being bound or shackled by it. Knowing that you 
> are living in a country in which your ancestors were actually literally 
> bound and shacked by the ancestors of your landlord and your boss is not 
> something you should have to pretend doesn't shape your opportunities.
>  
>
> HEY! 
>
> Good, some pushback from your own mind!!
>

It's all my own mind. Like I said, I don't really listen to anyone else 
very often. I mainly only go by my actual experience in the world. 


OK, let us look at this hypothesis: X "is not something you should have to 
> pretend doesn't shape your opportunities" Y such that Y is the current 
> state of "being what you are" and X is "what one's ancestors where" and X 
> is the predecesor of Y in some sequence. This means that some past state of 
> being exactly determined that what you are now and thus you are nothing 
> other than a copy of their state."
>
> Do you agree that "who you are (in a total sense) is exactly 
> determined by some other people who are just like you but that are not you"?
>

I think that I we are is a mosaic of influences, ranging from the personal 
to the familial, social, cultural, biological, circumstantial. That doesn't 
mean that if you are born to a family where you get a car when you are 16 
and your uncle's friend gives you a job at the investment bank that you 
don't have an insurmountable advantage over others who aren't in that 
situation. 

>
>
>
>   
>
>> This kind of thinking is identical to the doctrine of the fall that the 
>> Abrahamics use to subdue the masses by the means of guilt. I reject the 
>> entire idea that I have a debt to pay because some ancestor of mine may 
>> have done X, Y  or Z. 
>>
>
> I don't suggest that. I don't suggest guilt. I suggest consideration of 
> those who are not in your position.
>
>
> OH K! 
>
>
>
>
> Clear the room of all childrens, pets and non-insured. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW I AM NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANYONE?*...
>
>  Breath deeply  OK. Calm
>
>
> Can you answer my question?
>

Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant 
culture. The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it 
easy' or 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a 
white male in the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever 
lived, and I recognize the problems that might pose to others outside of my 
group and how important it is to address those problems and participate 
with those others as equals to the extent that I can.'
 

>
>  The point of knowing the history of genocide and oppression in America 
> and the role that it played and continues to play in our standard of living 
> (for the 0.01% especially) is not to inspire guilt at all, it is to inspire 
> genuine compassion and understanding. It is an invitation to see things 
> from the staggeringly different perspective of the people living next door, 
> or on the other side of town.
>  
>
> It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a non-faithful 
> sample of a population is to bias any possible prediction. Why are you 
> focusing on some partition of some equivalence class: "white, green, pink, 
> yellow, purple, black,... or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what ever some 
> finite list you can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of Reality? I am 
> not interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever that cannot 
> possibly be true!
>

I don't understand the complexity. The US is the richest country because it 
had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and 
relatively no real political threats on any geographic side. Is that not 
true? The beneficiaries of that wealth are almost exclusively white 
Europeans with many customs and values in common. Many who did not benefit 
from that prosperity were also white Europeans but disproportionately they 
were not.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> 'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, and 
>> that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, which is 
>> what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems 
>> like you are saying that it is pointless to have any political view at all 
>> because morality is an unknowable mystery.
>>
>>Hi Craig,
>>
>> Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, Glen Beck, Dan 
>> Ariely...
>>
>>  
> Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get into that 
> so much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel West, Bill Maher, Rachel 
> Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or Sam Harris (although mainly I 
> disagree with him on Free Will, not sure of his other politics as much). 
> Glen Beck, Rush, Ann Coulter... umm. I only hope that they are born 
> non-white, non-Christian, and poor for their next 2000 lives. 
>
>  
>  
> Ah, "not a cause of some wrong"... Is it OK to be "projectively 
> bigoted"?
>

Not sure what you're saying. Bigotry is always a projection, isn't it? Is 
bigotry OK? It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, but it isn't a 
useful or attractive trait as far as I can tell.

> What makes any person or group of persons to make absolute judgements?
>

Does that include those making the absolute judgements on those they 
perceive as making absolute judgments?

> How can they imagine for themselves the absolute knowledge of Truth, and 
> yet, they with their finite computational capacity, dare do so. Hubris! 
> Behold, Light-bringer!
>

I don't think it takes a Lucifer or Phoenix to see that abolishing slavery 
at all costs was a better option than preserving it at all costs. Sometimes 
there are moments when it comes down to that. It doesn't take infinite 
wisdom to see that having a handful of all powerful wealthy overlords rule 
over billions of people living in various states of alienation and poverty. 

I'm not saying these kinds of things weren't inevitable or that those who 
rule are any worse than any other people who might have ruled instead. To 
me its a logistical issue. There is currently a condition where the 
mathematics of population, technology, and the distribution of resources 
makes a catastrophic inequality without some sort of intervention. 
Personally I don't think that there is any hope of that - I think it's all 
going to continue to get worse and worse for everyone...but I could be 
wrong and I hope that I am. Surprises have happened before.

Craig

>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XR--Co7pGAcJ.
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 4:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:50:36 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time,
once said,
"Don't just do something.Stand there."


That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of
inherited privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone
other than the ruling minority of the world be compelled to agree?


Hi Craig,

Ah, the chestnuts of Social Justice theory. So are we bound
and shackled to a position in life by things over which we
individually have no control? No, not ever!


There is a difference between being conscious of your position and of 
other people's position and being bound or shackled by it. Knowing 
that you are living in a country in which your ancestors were actually 
literally bound and shacked by the ancestors of your landlord and your 
boss is not something you should have to pretend doesn't shape your 
opportunities.


HEY!

Good, some pushback from your own mind!! OK, let us look at this 
hypothesis: X "is not something you should have to pretend doesn't shape 
your opportunities" Y such that Y is the current state of "being what 
you are" and X is "what one's ancestors where" and X is the predecesor 
of Y in some sequence. This means that some past state of being exactly 
determined that what you are now and thus you are nothing other than a 
copy of their state."


Do you agree that "who you are (in a total sense) is exactly 
determined by some other people who are just like you but that are not you"?





This kind of thinking is identical to the doctrine of the fall
that the Abrahamics use to subdue the masses by the means of
guilt. I reject the entire idea that I have a debt to pay because
some ancestor of mine may have done X, Y  or Z.


I don't suggest that. I don't suggest guilt. I suggest consideration 
of those who are not in your position.


OH K!




Clear the room of all childrens, pets and non-insured.







_/*HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW I AM NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION 
ANYONE?*/_ ...


 Breath deeply  OK. Calm


Can you answer my question?

The point of knowing the history of genocide and oppression in America 
and the role that it played and continues to play in our standard of 
living (for the 0.01% especially) is not to inspire guilt at all, it 
is to inspire genuine compassion and understanding. It is an 
invitation to see things from the staggeringly different perspective 
of the people living next door, or on the other side of town.


It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a non-faithful 
sample of a population is to bias any possible prediction. Why are you 
focusing on some partition of some equivalence class: "white, green, 
pink, yellow, purple, black,... or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what 
ever some finite list you can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of 
Reality? I am not interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever 
that cannot possibly be true!


Faithfull samples are such that they exactly match one-to-one with 
their total ensemble iff number of variants that total ensemble goes to 
infinity. No difference at all between what "it is" and what "made it". 
Nice, so we have a neat way of matching up the ancestors of some "crime" 
we define now to exist in the world and some presently existing person 
or thing that has that ancestor.


Oh Shit! If my Dad is a Jew and my mother is a Cambodian and their 
parents  I will be a victim from any point of view and thus 
genocide! Must be avenged!


Think about what I am saying. People statistics is amazing when 
used correctly and not hard to figure out!





We are all the same All-Soul in different circumstances, not able
to see past the momentary differences between what we think we are
and what we really are.


Some momentary differences last for many lifetimes though.


Yep they sure are. Especially those that are manipulated to become 
edge issues. Political science is fun too, it is just the study of 
interacting chaotic systems! ;-)




Craig


_Any action that merely highlights differences is an error to be
avoided. Seek truth, eliminate errors..__
_



Yep. A nice line, I must say so myself.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know
better, and that those people were Progressive. Again, you might
disagree, which is what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool,
but why? Otherwise it seems like you are saying that it is
pointless to have any political view at all because morality is
an unknowable mystery.


Hi Craig,

Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, Glen
Beck, Dan Ariely...


Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get into 
that so much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel West, Bill 
Maher, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or Sam Harris 
(although mainly I disagree with him on Free Will, not sure of his 
other politics as much). Glen Beck, Rush, Ann Coulter... umm. I only 
hope that they are born non-white, non-Christian, and poor for their 
next 2000 lives.





Ah, "not a cause of some wrong"... Is it OK to be "projectively 
bigoted"? What makes any person or group of persons to make absolute 
judgements? How can they imagine for themselves the absolute knowledge 
of Truth, and yet, they with their finite computational capacity, dare 
do so. Hubris! Behold, Light-bringer!


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:50:36 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>  
>>  
>> I beg to differ. 
>>  
>> My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
>>  
>> "Don't just do something.Stand there." 
>>  
>>  
>
> That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of inherited 
> privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than the ruling 
> minority of the world be compelled to agree?
>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Ah, the chestnuts of Social Justice theory. So are we bound and 
> shackled to a position in life by things over which we individually have no 
> control? No, not ever! 
>

There is a difference between being conscious of your position and of other 
people's position and being bound or shackled by it. Knowing that you are 
living in a country in which your ancestors were actually literally bound 
and shacked by the ancestors of your landlord and your boss is not 
something you should have to pretend doesn't shape your opportunities.

> This kind of thinking is identical to the doctrine of the fall that the 
> Abrahamics use to subdue the masses by the means of guilt. I reject the 
> entire idea that I have a debt to pay because some ancestor of mine may 
> have done X, Y  or Z. 
>

I don't suggest that. I don't suggest guilt. I suggest consideration of 
those who are not in your position. The point of knowing the history of 
genocide and oppression in America and the role that it played and 
continues to play in our standard of living (for the 0.01% especially) is 
not to inspire guilt at all, it is to inspire genuine compassion and 
understanding. It is an invitation to see things from the staggeringly 
different perspective of the people living next door, or on the other side 
of town.

> We are all the same All-Soul in different circumstances, not able to see 
> past the momentary differences between what we think we are and what we 
> really are.
>

Some momentary differences last for many lifetimes though.

Craig

>
> Any action that merely highlights differences is an error to be 
> avoided. Seek truth, eliminate errors..
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7YQS596E5xYJ.
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> 'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, and 
> that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, which is 
> what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems 
> like you are saying that it is pointless to have any political view at all 
> because morality is an unknowable mystery.
>
>Hi Craig,
>
> Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, Glen Beck, Dan 
> Ariely...
>
>
Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get into that so 
much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel West, Bill Maher, Rachel 
Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or Sam Harris (although mainly I 
disagree with him on Free Will, not sure of his other politics as much). 
Glen Beck, Rush, Ann Coulter... umm. I only hope that they are born 
non-white, non-Christian, and poor for their next 2000 lives. 


-- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ff0QBPa7sIoJ.
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>> On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> > How about this: 
>> > Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 
>>
>> Dear Roger, 
>>
>> No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
>> lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
>> over their utopia in the past. 
>>
>
> I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
> possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
> than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
> could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened 
> and put future back in a box?
>
> Craig
>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to 
> solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they 
> have worked before in similar situations). 
>

That is what Progressive politics is all about. That is how you move toward 
a better society. I have never heard them use the word utopia or perfect 
society though.

 

> "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes" 
> or some such...
>
>
 That's what I'm saying. Hanging on to slavery, apartheid, colonialism, etc*was 
a mistake
*. 

Craig

-- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0cVPlHnAqKkJ.
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, 
and that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, 
which is what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why? 
Otherwise it seems like you are saying that it is pointless to have 
any political view at all because morality is an unknowable mystery.



Hi Craig,

Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette, Glen Beck, 
Dan Ariely...


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?


On 12/15/2012 3:20 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at.


Hi Roger,

No, that would be Utopian. Truth must be perpetually sought. It is 
never "arrived at", much like a limit of an infinite number of actions.



As politics shows, however, the public is divided into
liberals and conservatives, who in principle can never agree.
because one bases his judgment on a moral  standpoint
(is it fair ?) and the other on arithmetic (we can't afford it).
Heart vs. mind, in short.


We need people with hearts and minds, not one or the other.


But subjective truth is both.


Indeed!

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:58 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> That's the old guilt argument. It's as old as Robin Hood
> and is just as likely to stay with us as it works.
>

It's funny, I only feel guilt when I am guilty. It's called having a 
conscience.

Craig
 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-15, 14:55:57
> *Subject:* Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>  
>>  
>> I beg to differ. 
>>  
>> My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
>>  
>> "Don't just do something.Stand there." 
>>  
>>
>
> That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of inherited 
> privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than the ruling 
> minority of the world be compelled to agree?
>
> Craig
>
>>   
>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>> 12/15/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-12-15, 14:46:07
>> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
>> emotional,brainstudyshows
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>>> > How about this: 
>>> > Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 
>>>
>>> Dear Roger, 
>>>
>>> No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
>>> lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
>>> over their utopia in the past. 
>>>
>>
>> I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
>> possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
>> than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
>> could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened 
>> and put future back in a box?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but 
>>> > unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. 
>>> > So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. 
>>>
>>> They should listen more to each other and stop the childish 
>>> recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Onward! 
>>>
>>> Stephen 
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NZZYfYXxpfgJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UB3bBg-zMNIJ.
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows

Hi Stephen P. King 

I am tempted to say that the best solution is for
congress to shut down for a year.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 15:44:46
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows

On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
> How about this: 
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 

Dear Roger, 

No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
over their utopia in the past. 

I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and 
put future back in a box?

Craig

Hi Craig,

How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to solve the 
problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they have worked 
before in similar situations). "Those that do not learn from history are doomed 
to repeat its mistakes" or some such...

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge


On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once
said,
"Don't just do something.Stand there."


That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of 
inherited privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other 
than the ruling minority of the world be compelled to agree?


Hi Craig,

Ah, the chestnuts of Social Justice theory. So are we bound and 
shackled to a position in life by things over which we individually have 
no control? No, not ever! This kind of thinking is identical to the 
doctrine of the fall that the Abrahamics use to subdue the masses by the 
means of guilt. I reject the entire idea that I have a debt to pay 
because some ancestor of mine may have done X, Y  or Z. We are all the 
same All-Soul in different circumstances, not able to see past the 
momentary differences between what we think we are and what we really are.


Any action that merely highlights differences is an error to be 
avoided. Seek truth, eliminate errors..


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion

Hi Stephen P. King 

So what's Kant supposed to say ? 
I'm not sure if this is true, but it would benefit me
if you agree to it ?


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 15:42:09
Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/15/2012 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
> The a priori are simply assumptions made before
> performing a deduction which would be impossible to do
> without the assumptions. An example would be that arithmetic
> is true.
> If you can do without an a priori, you could be a celebrated
> theorist, if even that word is the proper one.
Hi Roger,

 OK, in that context I agree with you. But what inevitably happens 
is that people take the rule of thumb use of a priori and treat it as a 
universal mandate! I am OK with pedagological use of a priori, but this 
is not what kant did. He treated the a priori as a universal mandate.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows

On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> How about this:
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.

Dear Roger,

No, All that is different between them is where their respective
utopias
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine
over their utopia in the past.

I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not 
be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there 
better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a 
future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try 
to undo what has happened and put future back in a box?

Craig

Hi Craig,

How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to 
solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as 
they have worked before in similar situations). "Those that do not learn 
from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes" or some such...

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:18:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>  Dear Craig,
>>
>> All of these points are instances of taking a particular evaluational 
>> frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from it.
>>
>
> I think that they are instances of real world examples. I don't issue any 
> judgments from it - I just ask - 
>
> 'Was slavery good before Progressive activism changed it'?  
> 'Were the practices of industry toward its workers good or bad before 
> Progressive activism changed it? 
> Was colonialism and Apartheid in India, South Africa, the American South, 
> etc good or bad before Progressive activism changed it?
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Each of those questions has as a premise the idea that we can sit in 
> our current world with its conventions and judge the actions that occurred 
> in circumstances that dis not have our knowledge, as if the people of that 
> time should have known better that slavery was not good, etc. 
>

I'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, and 
that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, which is 
what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems 
like you are saying that it is pointless to have any political view at all 
because morality is an unknowable mystery.


>  
> I don't intend to prove to anyone that these things were bad or that they 
> were improved - unlike with Conservative approaches - I leave that up to 
> you. Maybe you say they were better off slaves and second class citizens, 
> or that the wars and changes that followed weren't worth it? Or maybe you 
> say these weren't movements of Progressive activism? Maybe you have a list 
> of your own? That's cool, I'm open to hearing about any of that. I don't 
> see that these examples are somehow disqualified though. That just makes me 
> think that there is no counterargument because their truth is self evident, 
> and therefore 'unfair' to the other side.
>  
>
> My argument is that the entire idea of making lists and checking them 
> off is wrong! It is a form of prejudice, 
>

That may be true, but it may also be a counter-prejudice. What other 
intelligence do we have against history repeating itself other than to look 
at history?

 

> IMHO, to use knowledge one has from experience to rationalize the actions 
> of others into pigeonholes of "good" and "bad".
>

I agree in general of course, but for this informal conversation I think 
that it is entirely appropriate. I don't demand a yes or no, good or bad 
answer, I am asking instead for an expression of to what extent these 
examples support the view that Progressives are immoral trouble makers who 
are always wrong, or the opposite view, or some other view.
 

> This kind of ethics drives me batshit crazy as it assumes that the 
> universe has a set of predefined configurations that, if they occur, 
> everything will be fair and justice will prevail.
> Sorry, "the poor will always be among us". It is simply not possible 
> to maximize more than one variable and thus fairness and justice for all is 
> impossible. Let me give you an example. What would happen if everyone won 
> the Lotto? Would they all be rich? NO! Why?
>

The poor will always be with us, sure, but the 0.01% have not always 
received 5% of the income (to say nothing of the net worth...)

It doesn't always have to look like this: 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth%2C_2007.jpg
 

>
>  
>   It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply 
>> wrongheaded.
>>
>
> I know you're not saying that I should make up examples from the future 
> instead or talk from theory right? Examples from the past are wrongheaded? 
> How so?
>  
>
> We have to evaluate situations using the knowledge that is available 
> under the circumstances of the situation (and not usign knowledge that 
> would be unavailable), 
>

No, we can evaluate our policies scientifically based on which strategies 
were actually successful and see if we can find any underlying patterns 
with which to shape future policies. What other way makes sense?
 

> otherwise we are like the aliens that can read your mind and demand that 
> you play the Monty Hall 
> gamewith them. Your 
> discussions on the nature of Free Will should clue you in 
> to what I mean here...
>

 Twenty/Twenty hindsight isn't a reasonable argument for delaying the 
overthrow of tyranny. The overthrow of tyranny is in all of our best 
interests.


>   
>  
>>  Unless you put yourself into the context with you are evaluating and 
>> then considering the facts as they stand with a set of universal ethical 
>> principles, then those judgements and implications cannot be seen as 
>> anything more than rationalizations to behave in one way or another.
>> We can rationalize any action to be go

Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/15/2012 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
The a priori are simply assumptions made before
performing a deduction which would be impossible to do
without the assumptions. An example would be that arithmetic
is true.
If you can do without an a priori, you could be a celebrated
theorist, if even that word is the proper one.

Hi Roger,

OK, in that context I agree with you. But what inevitably happens 
is that people take the rule of thumb use of a priori and treat it as a 
universal mandate! I am OK with pedagological use of a priori, but this 
is not what kant did. He treated the a priori as a universal mandate.



--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 2:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.


Sounds like a position Jesus would approve of.




http://futureprimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/61440_452139411520705_1795875294_n3.jpeg

Hi,

Who are these people in the illustrations supposed to be 
demonstrating to? Each other? It is easy to complain. It is hard to 
actually solve problems.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge

Hi Craig Weinberg 

That's the old guilt argument. It's as old as Robin Hood
and is just as likely to stay with us as it works.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:55:57
Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg


I beg to differ. 

My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,

"Don't just do something.Stand there." 


That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of inherited 
privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than the ruling 
minority of the world be compelled to agree?

Craig


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:46:07
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
> How about this: 
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 

Dear Roger, 

No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
over their utopia in the past. 


I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and 
put future back in a box?

Craig




> Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but 
> unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. 
> So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. 

They should listen more to each other and stop the childish 
recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. 

-- 
Onward! 

Stephen 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NZZYfYXxpfgJ.
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows


On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as
personal.


Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to
avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this
time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post
a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say
that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking
clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen.
Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making
weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or
philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.

Dear Craig,

Please link some examples. Let me present you with a
counter-example to your claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc
 You might consider
Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree...


"[By 1994] "Newt World" was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the
National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the
Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show
on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment
Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom
Foundation.

Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as
Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...]

[...]

Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote
its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to *"go negative"
early and "never back off". They must sometimes ignore voters'
main concerns because "important issues can be of limited
value". *The book suggests looking for a "minor detail" to use
against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good
example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be
helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences:
"Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money?"
Mr. Gingrich has called the book "absolutely brilliant". 


Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document,

... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of
Control", in which the then-House minority whip gave
candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to
sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example,*it
advised characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay,
sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors"*. (LA
Times, 12/19/94, pages A31)"

 (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html)

I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly 
Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which 
part of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. 
Does he insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok.


Craig


Watch the whole thing, at least for context.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

guilt and victory

Hi Craig Weinberg 


Liberals argue like women do, they will try to win by making 
you feel guilty. This nearly always works.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:51:48
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant 
andemotional,brainstudyshows




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:08:50 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you are a liberal, you cannot understand a conservative's motives.

Do you mean "Because I am a conservative and therefore understand liberals, I 
know that they cannot understand a conservative's motives'? Or 'Neither 
liberals nor conservatives can understand each other's motives'?

I would say the latter is true to some extent, but also true that both libs and 
cons see through the other's blind spots as well. That's what I'm interested 
in, is seeing the blind spots in Progressive thought, but I don't really get 
much substantial views of it. Mostly it's just white people loudly spouting 
discredited ideas from the past.

Craig




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:27:44
Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
emotional,brainstudyshows




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Stephen P. King 

Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.

Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking 
about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at 
your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic 
and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your 
thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. 
Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile 
remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse 
Progressives of taking it personally.

 



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
studyshows


On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition that 
fixes things once and for all.

That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the 
universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.

HEY!

Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 



-- 
Onward!

Stephen
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rsKZ-XfAjIoJ.
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.

Re: L's view is in the end identical to Berkeley's revised view (ie that God sees all)


On 12/15/2012 2:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

i Craig Weinberg
Berkeley had to finally admit that matter is real,
and not an illusion, not because WE see it, but because God does.
But, to revert back to Leibniz, because God sees all things
from all the perspectives of the infinity of monads,
L's view is in the end identical to Berkeley's revised
position.

Hi Roger and Craig,

I agree.

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows

Hi Stephen P. King 

OK. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:29:50
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows


On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> How about this:
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.

Dear Roger,

No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine
over their utopia in the past.


> Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but
> unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo.
> So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives.

They should listen more to each other and stop the childish
recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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.

Re: Re: How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?

Hi Stephen P. King 

You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at. 

As politics shows, however, the public is divided into
liberals and conservatives, who in principle can never agree.
because one bases his judgment on a moral  standpoint
(is it fair ?) and the other on arithmetic (we can't afford it).
Heart vs. mind, in short.

But subjective truth is both.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:51:08
Subject: Re: How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?

On 12/15/2012 1:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?
> I agree with him 100 %.

 I disagree 100% Truth is the agreement between many 
subjectives. A single subjective cannot even know what truth is.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Dear Craig,

All of these points are instances of taking a particular
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements
from it.


I think that they are instances of real world examples. I don't issue 
any judgments from it - I just ask -


'Was slavery good before Progressive activism changed it'?
'Were the practices of industry toward its workers good or bad before 
Progressive activism changed it?
Was colonialism and Apartheid in India, South Africa, the American 
South, etc good or bad before Progressive activism changed it?


Hi Craig,

Each of those questions has as a premise the idea that we can sit 
in our current world with its conventions and judge the actions that 
occurred in circumstances that dis not have our knowledge, as if the 
people of that time should have known better that slavery was not good, 
etc.




I don't intend to prove to anyone that these things were bad or that 
they were improved - unlike with Conservative approaches - I leave 
that up to you. Maybe you say they were better off slaves and second 
class citizens, or that the wars and changes that followed weren't 
worth it? Or maybe you say these weren't movements of Progressive 
activism? Maybe you have a list of your own? That's cool, I'm open to 
hearing about any of that. I don't see that these examples are somehow 
disqualified though. That just makes me think that there is no 
counterargument because their truth is self evident, and therefore 
'unfair' to the other side.


My argument is that the entire idea of making lists and checking 
them off is wrong! It is a form of prejudice, IMHO, to use knowledge one 
has from experience to rationalize the actions of others into 
pigeonholes of "good" and "bad". This kind of ethics drives me batshit 
crazy as it assumes that the universe has a set of predefined 
configurations that, if they occur, everything will be fair and justice 
will prevail.
Sorry, "the poor will always be among us". It is simply not 
possible to maximize more than one variable and thus fairness and 
justice for all is impossible. Let me give you an example. What would 
happen if everyone won the Lotto? Would they all be rich? NO! Why?




It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply
wrongheaded.


I know you're not saying that I should make up examples from the 
future instead or talk from theory right? Examples from the past are 
wrongheaded? How so?


We have to evaluate situations using the knowledge that is 
available under the circumstances of the situation (and not usign 
knowledge that would be unavailable), otherwise we are like the aliens 
that can read your mind and demand that you play the Monty Hall game 
 with them. Your 
discussions on the nature of Free Will should clue you in to what I mean 
here...




Unless you put yourself into the context with you are evaluating
and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of
universal ethical principles, then those judgements and
implications cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations
to behave in one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad.
Rationalization, pushed too far, allows anything.


If we rule out examples from the past - and rule out present day 
comparisons like the success of Progressive policies in places like 
Scandinavia and Western Europe versus the failure of Regressive 
policies everywhere else, then all we have is propaganda made up by 
Think tanks and our own speculation.


Not at all. My point is that it is treachery to change the context 
of a situation to use it as a reason to do X or to not do Y. It is like 
assuming one is omniscient when one is not.




--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>  
>  
> I beg to differ. 
>  
> My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
>  
> "Don't just do something.Stand there." 
>  
>

That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of inherited 
privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than the ruling 
minority of the world be compelled to agree?

Craig

>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-15, 14:46:07
> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
> emotional,brainstudyshows
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>> On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> > How about this: 
>> > Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 
>>
>> Dear Roger, 
>>
>> No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
>> lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
>> over their utopia in the past. 
>>
>
> I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
> possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
> than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
> could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened 
> and put future back in a box?
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> > Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but 
>> > unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. 
>> > So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. 
>>
>> They should listen more to each other and stop the childish 
>> recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. 
>>
>> -- 
>> Onward! 
>>
>> Stephen 
>>
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NZZYfYXxpfgJ.
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.

Re: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:08:50 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> If you are a liberal, you cannot understand a conservative's motives.
>

Do you mean "Because I am a conservative and therefore understand liberals, 
I know that they cannot understand a conservative's motives'? Or 'Neither 
liberals nor conservatives can understand each other's motives'?

I would say the latter is true to some extent, but also true that both libs 
and cons see through the other's blind spots as well. That's what I'm 
interested in, is seeing the blind spots in Progressive thought, but I 
don't really get much substantial views of it. Mostly it's just white 
people loudly spouting discredited ideas from the past.

Craig

 
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-15, 13:27:44
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
> emotional,brainstudyshows
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Stephen P. King 
>>  
>> Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
>>
>
> Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid 
> talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. 
> Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a 
> politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right 
> Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist 
> idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no 
> reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in 
> science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.
>
>  
>
>>   
>>  
>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>> 12/15/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Stephen P. King 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
>> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
>> studyshows
>>
>>   On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>   That why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition 
>>> that fixes things once and for all.
>>>
>>
>> That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in 
>> the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.
>>
>>
>> HEY!
>>
>> Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rsKZ-XfAjIoJ.
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.

Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge

Hi Craig Weinberg


I beg to differ. 

My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,

"Don't just do something.Stand there." 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:46:07
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
> How about this: 
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 

Dear Roger, 

No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
over their utopia in the past. 


I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and 
put future back in a box?

Craig




> Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but 
> unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. 
> So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. 

They should listen more to each other and stop the childish 
recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. 

-- 
Onward! 

Stephen 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ.
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
> > How about this: 
> > Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 
>
> Dear Roger, 
>
> No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias 
> lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine 
> over their utopia in the past. 
>

I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be 
possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do 
than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What 
could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened 
and put future back in a box?

Craig


>
> > Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but 
> > unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. 
> > So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. 
>
> They should listen more to each other and stop the childish 
> recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. 
>
> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ.
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.

Re: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion

Hi Stephen P. King 

The a priori are simply assumptions made before
performing a deduction which would be impossible to do
without the assumptions. An example would be that arithmetic
is true. 

If you can do without an a priori, you could be a celebrated
theorist, if even that word is the proper one. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:29:21
Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/15/2012 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King -

I believe with Kant that conciousness has structure (the categories) 
or else we could not know anything. These categories are ontological,
not mental, and so are a priori.

Dear Roger,

This is where I think that Kant is wrong. To claim an a priori to be 
absolute is to reduce all minds to a singular solipsism confined to an absolute 
apartheid.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Progressives and social darwinism



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
> which makes everything he did right.
>

Sounds like a position Jesus would approve of. 



http://futureprimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/61440_452139411520705_1795875294_n3.jpeg

 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-15, 13:19:10
> *Subject:* Re: Progressives and social darwinism
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things. 
>> Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
>> the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as. 
>>
>
> Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects of 
> the British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? That he 
> was changing what was commonly accepted as good?
>
> When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
> segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 
> 'commonly accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true and 
> beautiful? How about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? Also the 
> good old days?
>
>  
>
>>  Thus one
>> subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics. 
>> It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.
>>
>
> Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of 
> support. You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression 
> happened to have come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore 
> liberty. That is just as much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is to 
> say 'whoever tries to change anything is a ruthless bastard, but whoever 
> enforces the existing order or regressing to a previous order is a good and 
> moral person.'
>  
>
>>   
>> As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good. 
>> Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly 
>> brought in good new things.
>>  
>> But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted 
>> to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists, 
>> screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
>> especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
>> young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class. 
>>
>
> Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. The 
> same goes for attempts to prevent change. There are counter-revolutionaries 
> who are just as bloody as revolutionaries.  The idea that 'young men think 
> nothing of executing a kindergarten class' being related to progressive 
> causes is ridiculous. If that were the case, then progressive Scandinavia, 
> France, Canada, etc would be awash in massacres. Progressives try to 
> eliminate guns, remember?
>
>   
>> Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
>> unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
>> melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.
>>
>
> Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a kid 
> and what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and other 
> confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you that 
> culture has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and I agree 
> that there is something to that beyond just my taste, but really it isn't 
> that important. The decay of Amercian culture is not the result of what 
> happened 50 years ago or even (much worse in my opinion) what happened in 
> the 80s when Reagan era conservatism brought back militarism and 
> overconsumption values. If you want to blame something, blame 
> overpopulation and the corruption of American institutions. The value of 
> human life is indirectly proportionate to how many extra people you have 
> and how imbalanced the society is. Those are the tensions which make money 
> more important than making civilization beautiful.
>
>   
>> Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
>> young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
>> These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
>> Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.
>>
>
> Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have made 
> life enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. They don't 
> destroy anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the consenting adults 
> who participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.
>
> If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate really 
> was better, and really was God's magic recipe for p

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows

On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> How about this:
> Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.

Dear Roger,

No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine
over their utopia in the past.


> Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but
> unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo.
> So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives.

They should listen more to each other and stop the childish
recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Stephen P. King 
>>  
>> Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
>>  
>
> Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid 
> talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. 
> Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a 
> politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right 
> Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist 
> idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no 
> reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in 
> science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.
>  
> Dear Craig,
>
> Please link some examples. Let me present you with a counter-example 
> to your claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might 
> consider Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree...
>
>
"[By 1994] "Newt World" was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National 
> Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich 
> campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, 
> National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and 
> Freedom Foundation. 
>
> Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh 
> and with Christian Coalition groups. [...] 
> [...]
>
Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to 
textbook, which urges challengers to *"go negative" early and "never back 
off". They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because "important 
issues can be of limited value". *The book suggests looking for a "minor 
detail" to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good 
example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it 
counsels candidates to consider the consequences: "Does it help, or at 
least not harm, efforts to raise money?" Mr. Gingrich has called the book 
"absolutely brilliant". 

Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document, 

... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control", in 
which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, 
tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For 
example,* it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay, 
sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors"*. (LA Times, 
12/19/94, pages A31)"

 (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html)

I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly 
Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part 
of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he 
insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok.

Craig


> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VxHVjUN6ALIJ.
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.

L's view is in the end identical to Berkeley's revised view (ie that God sees all)

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Berkeley had to finally admit that matter is real,
and not an illusion, not because WE see it, but because God does.
But, to revert back to Leibniz, because God sees all things
from all the perspectives of the infinity of monads,
L's view is in the end identical to Berkeley's revised
position. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:53:11
Subject: Re: Leibniz is not an immaterialist. Reality is not an illusion.


On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:41:08 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King 

As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.  

Leibniz doesn't,  so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics 
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant, also a double-sperspective type.  Modern neurophilosophy
is said to be essentially Kantian. Leibniz is close to
Kant in double aspect about a thing:

1) thing "in itself " as perceived mentally (as a monad) from your perspective 
as a phenomenon.  
2) thing "for itself," as it actually is physically without a perspective (as a 
scientist would treat it)

For Kant, perception occurs through the joining of these two aspects.

So the thing isn't an illusion, or hallucination.
Any object as seen by you is only seen  
phenomenologically, that is, "in itself", as  it appears in 
your mind, from your perspective.  But as with
Kant, matter  it is not an illusion, it is a "for itself".
You can still perform precise experiments on the object. 

So I can still stub my toe. I don't know about Bruno.

im ma te ri al ism  (m-t r--lzm) 
n. 
A metaphysical doctrine denying the existence of matter.



imma teri al ist adj. & n.


immaterialism [  m  t  r   l z m] 
n Philosophy 
1. (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material world exists only in the mind
2. (Philosophy) the doctrine that only immaterial substances or spiritual 
beings exist See also idealism [3] 
immaterialist  n


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen



I agree with Stephen, nice post.

I think that where my view improves on these is that I see every 'for itself' 
is also something else's 'in itself', on some level of description, and vice 
versal. Multisense realism points to that joining and sees it instead as a 
twisting, a pseudo-separation. In other words, all 'itselves' are nothing but 
the capacity to pseudo-separate 'for-ness' from 'in-ness', and that capacity is 
'sense' participation, and it is the absolute ground of being.

Think of for-ness and is-ness as the collector and emitter, while the base is 
what makes those two pseudo-separated modalities into a monad-whole.

Maybe Berkeley would have had it right if he knew the extent of the 
sophistication of the microcosm. He was correct that there is no universally 
objective 'for itself' entities of matter, but rather for-ness is the underlap 
of all in-ness of any given participant.

Craig

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/a0Rb3KHJjawJ.
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:37:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 12/15/2012 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things. 
>> Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
>> the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as. 
>>  
>
> Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects of 
> the British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? That he 
> was changing what was commonly accepted as good?
>
> When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
> segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 
> 'commonly accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true and 
> beautiful? How about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? Also the 
> good old days?
>
>  
>
>>  Thus one
>> subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics. 
>> It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.
>>  
>
> Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of 
> support. You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression 
> happened to have come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore 
> liberty. That is just as much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is to 
> say 'whoever tries to change anything is a ruthless bastard, but whoever 
> enforces the existing order or regressing to a previous order is a good and 
> moral person.'
>  
>  
>>   
>> As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good. 
>> Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly 
>> brought in good new things.
>>  
>> But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted 
>> to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists, 
>>  screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
>> especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
>> young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class. 
>>  
>
> Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. The 
> same goes for attempts to prevent change. There are counter-revolutionaries 
> who are just as bloody as revolutionaries.  The idea that 'young men think 
> nothing of executing a kindergarten class' being related to progressive 
> causes is ridiculous. If that were the case, then progressive Scandinavia, 
> France, Canada, etc would be awash in massacres. Progressives try to 
> eliminate guns, remember?
>
>
>> Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
>> unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
>> melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.
>>  
>
> Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a kid 
> and what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and other 
> confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you that 
> culture has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and I agree 
> that there is something to that beyond just my taste, but really it isn't 
> that important. The decay of Amercian culture is not the result of what 
> happened 50 years ago or even (much worse in my opinion) what happened in 
> the 80s when Reagan era conservatism brought back militarism and 
> overconsumption values. If you want to blame something, blame 
> overpopulation and the corruption of American institutions. The value of 
> human life is indirectly proportionate to how many extra people you have 
> and how imbalanced the society is. Those are the tensions which make money 
> more important than making civilization beautiful.
>
>
>> Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
>> young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
>> These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
>> Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.
>>  
>
> Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have made 
> life enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. They don't 
> destroy anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the consenting adults 
> who participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.
>
> If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate really 
> was better, and really was God's magic recipe for perpetual happiness...why 
> didn't it stay that way? Do you think that Satan himself could have 
> convinced truly happy married couples to get divorced? That pornography 
> would have been a temptation for people who were well served by this Bronze 
> Age ideal? Progress triumphed over fundamentalism in the 60s because people 
> were educated enough and content enough for the first time to cast off the 
> Calvinist neuroses of the 19th century and grow up and out into a real 
> world full of real choices - not paint by numbers automatism.
>
> Craig
>  
> Dear Craig,
>
> All of these

Re: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows

Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you are a liberal, you cannot understand a conservative's motives.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:27:44
Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
emotional,brainstudyshows




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King 

Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.

Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking 
about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at 
your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic 
and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your 
thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. 
Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile 
remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse 
Progressives of taking it personally.

 



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
studyshows


On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition that 
fixes things once and for all.

That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the 
universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.

HEY!

Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 



-- 
Onward!

Stephen
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ.
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.

Re: Re: Progressives and social darwinism

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:19:10
Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things. 
Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as. 

Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects of the 
British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? That he was 
changing what was commonly accepted as good?

When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 'commonly 
accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true and beautiful? How 
about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? Also the good old days?

 
Thus one
subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics. 
It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.

Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of support. 
You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression happened to have 
come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore liberty. That is just as 
much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is to say 'whoever tries to change 
anything is a ruthless bastard, but whoever enforces the existing order or 
regressing to a previous order is a good and moral person.'
 


As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good. 
Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly 
brought in good new things.

But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted 
to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists, 
screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class. 

Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. The same 
goes for attempts to prevent change. There are counter-revolutionaries who are 
just as bloody as revolutionaries.  The idea that 'young men think nothing of 
executing a kindergarten class' being related to progressive causes is 
ridiculous. If that were the case, then progressive Scandinavia, France, 
Canada, etc would be awash in massacres. Progressives try to eliminate guns, 
remember?



Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.

Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a kid and 
what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and other 
confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you that culture 
has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and I agree that there is 
something to that beyond just my taste, but really it isn't that important. The 
decay of Amercian culture is not the result of what happened 50 years ago or 
even (much worse in my opinion) what happened in the 80s when Reagan era 
conservatism brought back militarism and overconsumption values. If you want to 
blame something, blame overpopulation and the corruption of American 
institutions. The value of human life is indirectly proportionate to how many 
extra people you have and how imbalanced the society is. Those are the tensions 
which make money more important than making civilization beautiful.



Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.

Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have made life 
enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. They don't destroy 
anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the consenting adults who 
participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.

If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate really was 
better, and really was God's magic recipe for perpetual happiness...why didn't 
it stay that way? Do you think that Satan himself could have convinced truly 
happy married couples to get divorced? That pornography would have been a 
temptation for people who were well served by this Bronze Age ideal? Progress 
triumphed over fundamentalism in the 60s because people were educated enough 
and content enough for the first time to cast off the Calvinist neuroses of the 
19th century and grow up and out into a real world full of real choices - not 
paint by numbers automatism.

Craig




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@v

Re: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


Solipsism teaches us that we might be able to know the truth
subjectively (as, for Christians, the Word) , but we cannot communicate 
that correctly (in words, in beliefs) to others.

Thus, to a Christian at least, only a little child can know the truth.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 10:38:19
Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2012 2:48 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:

 >On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 >
 >So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what
 >kind of truth is referred to.
 >
 >
 >There is one truth. Let us search it.
 >
 >
 >There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be
 > collected in
 >a coherent 'one truth'.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the one truth is that there are many possible inconsistent
>>> truths,
>>> but only one set of consistent truths for each of us, or for each
>>> universe,
>>> whatever.(;<)
>>
>> Dear Richard,
>>
>> I agree! How these truths are woven together is of considerable
>> interest, as such is that ToE's attempt.
>
>
> If different truth can be woven together, it means you bet on a unique truth
> capable of doing that.
>
> That is what happen in the TOE derived from comp. There is a unique truth:
> arithmetical truth, which gives rise to the many dreams, each containing the
> 8 incarnations of the possible points of view on each of those truth.
>
> Bruno


How do the 8 incarnations incorporate the 3 logics: X, Z and S4g?
>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/12/15 John Clark 

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> >> Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
>>> it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
>>> probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and
>>> just said walk into the chamber and I did so and found myself in Moscow I
>>> would have no way of knowing that there was another John Clark in
>>> Washington, nor would I have any idea why of all the cities in the world
>>> you chose to transport me to Moscow, I would not even know that a reason
>>> existed.
>>>
>>
>> >Well say you knew there was a 50% chance it would duplicate you and a
>> 50% chance it would transport you.
>>
>
> So a coin would be flipped and if it was heads then Jason Resch would
> simply allow the duplicating machine to do it's work and John Clark would
> remain in Helsinki and John Clark would go to Washington, but if the coin
> was tails then one second after the machine finished its work Jason Resch
> would put a bullet into John Clark's brain in Helsinki. If John Clark knew
> all of this beforehand John Clark would conclude there is a 100% chance
> that John Clark will go to Washington and a 0% chance John Clark will
> remain in Helsinki.
>
>>
>>>  >>> as it brings too close to first person indeterminacy for your
 comfort.

>>>
>>> >> Well of course I'm uncomfortable with it, most people are, most
>>> people want to know what the future will hold but we don't; and that's all
>>> "first person indeterminacy" is, a pompous way of saying "I dunno".
>>>
>>
>> >It's more than simple ignorance though.  Even with perfect knowledge you
>> cannot know.
>>
>
> John Clark knows with certainty that if something (like seeing Washington)
> causes John Clark to turn into the Washington Man then John Clark will see
> Washington and if something (like seeing Moscow) causes John Clark to turn
> into the Moscow Man then John Clark will turn into the Moscow Man. Not deep
> but true. So it all boils down to uncertainties in external environmental
> causes, and "first person indeterminacy" is just a pompous way of saying "I
> dunno" about what changes the external world will cause in John Clark.
>
>
>> > Even if you are God you cannot know.
>>
>
> Which should give a hint that the question makes no sense.
>
>
>>  > Tell me whether you disagree with the following and if so why:
>> You open the door to emerge from a duplication chamber, observe the
>> skyline and find it includes the Kremlin.  The experimental setup says your
>> duplicate in the other city found the skyline included the Washington
>> monument.  One of you saw the Kremlin and became the "saw the Kremlin man"
>> and the other saw the Washington monument and became the "saw the
>> Washington monument man".  Through the duplication and observance of
>> something different, each duplicate has acquired the subjective feeling of
>> observing a random unpredictable event.
>>
>
> The subjective feeling would be depended entirely on the individual
> involved , I'm only a expert on John Clark and John Clark would say he saw
> the Kremlin because he's the Moscow man and he's the Moscow man because he
> saw the Kremlin and he did not see the Washington monument because then
> he's be the Washington man. And he's not.
>
>   John K Clark
>


So in your world, it is impossible to assign probabilities for subjective
feeling in a duplication experiment, yet still in your vision, you can in a
MWI context and you see absolutely no contradiction with that, agreed ?

If you agree, then I think we can spare electrons from now on.

Quentin

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Leibniz is not an immaterialist. Reality is not an illusion.

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:41:08 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Stephen P. King 
>  
> As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.  
>
 
> Leibniz doesn't,  so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics 
> is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
> by Kant, also a double-sperspective type.  Modern neurophilosophy
> is said to be essentially Kantian. Leibniz is close to
> Kant in double aspect about a thing:
>  
> 1) thing "in itself " as perceived mentally (as a monad) from your 
> perspective as a phenomenon.  
> 2) thing "for itself," as it actually is physically without a perspective 
> (as a scientist would treat it)
>  
> For Kant, perception occurs through the joining of these two aspects.
>  
> So the thing isn't an illusion, or hallucination.
> Any object as seen by you is only seen  
> phenomenologically, that is, "in itself", as  it appears in 
> your mind, from your perspective.  But as with
> Kant, matter  it is not an illusion, it is a "for itself".
> You can still perform precise experiments on the object. 
>  
> So I can still stub my toe. I don't know about Bruno.
>  
>   im・ma・te・ri・al・ism  (m-tîr--lzm) 
> *n.* 
> A metaphysical doctrine denying the existence of matter.
> --
> *imma・teri・al・ist** adj.** & n.*
> --
> immaterialism [ˌɪməˈtɪərɪəˌlɪzəm] 
> *n* *Philosophy* 
> *1.* (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material world exists only in the 
> mind
> *2.* (Philosophy) the doctrine that only immaterial substances or 
> spiritual beings exist See also 
> idealism[3] 
> *immaterialist*  *n*
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
I agree with Stephen, nice post.

I think that where my view improves on these is that I see every 'for 
itself' is also something else's 'in itself', on some level of description, 
and vice versal. Multisense realism points to that joining and sees it 
instead as a twisting, a pseudo-separation. In other words, all 'itselves' 
are nothing but the capacity to pseudo-separate 'for-ness' from 'in-ness', 
and that capacity is 'sense' participation, and it is the absolute ground 
of being.

Think of for-ness and is-ness as the collector and emitter, while the base 
is what makes those two pseudo-separated modalities into a monad-whole.

Maybe Berkeley would have had it right if he knew the extent of the 
sophistication of the microcosm. He was correct that there is no 
universally objective 'for itself' entities of matter, but rather for-ness 
is the underlap of all in-ness of any given participant.

Craig

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/a0Rb3KHJjawJ.
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.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>> Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
>> it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
>> probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and
>> just said walk into the chamber and I did so and found myself in Moscow I
>> would have no way of knowing that there was another John Clark in
>> Washington, nor would I have any idea why of all the cities in the world
>> you chose to transport me to Moscow, I would not even know that a reason
>> existed.
>>
>
> >Well say you knew there was a 50% chance it would duplicate you and a 50%
> chance it would transport you.
>

So a coin would be flipped and if it was heads then Jason Resch would
simply allow the duplicating machine to do it's work and John Clark would
remain in Helsinki and John Clark would go to Washington, but if the coin
was tails then one second after the machine finished its work Jason Resch
would put a bullet into John Clark's brain in Helsinki. If John Clark knew
all of this beforehand John Clark would conclude there is a 100% chance
that John Clark will go to Washington and a 0% chance John Clark will
remain in Helsinki.

>
>>  >>> as it brings too close to first person indeterminacy for your
>>> comfort.
>>>
>>
>> >> Well of course I'm uncomfortable with it, most people are, most people
>> want to know what the future will hold but we don't; and that's all "first
>> person indeterminacy" is, a pompous way of saying "I dunno".
>>
>
> >It's more than simple ignorance though.  Even with perfect knowledge you
> cannot know.
>

John Clark knows with certainty that if something (like seeing Washington)
causes John Clark to turn into the Washington Man then John Clark will see
Washington and if something (like seeing Moscow) causes John Clark to turn
into the Moscow Man then John Clark will turn into the Moscow Man. Not deep
but true. So it all boils down to uncertainties in external environmental
causes, and "first person indeterminacy" is just a pompous way of saying "I
dunno" about what changes the external world will cause in John Clark.

> > Even if you are God you cannot know.
>

Which should give a hint that the question makes no sense.

>  > Tell me whether you disagree with the following and if so why:
> You open the door to emerge from a duplication chamber, observe the
> skyline and find it includes the Kremlin.  The experimental setup says your
> duplicate in the other city found the skyline included the Washington
> monument.  One of you saw the Kremlin and became the "saw the Kremlin man"
> and the other saw the Washington monument and became the "saw the
> Washington monument man".  Through the duplication and observance of
> something different, each duplicate has acquired the subjective feeling of
> observing a random unpredictable event.
>

The subjective feeling would be depended entirely on the individual
involved , I'm only a expert on John Clark and John Clark would say he saw
the Kremlin because he's the Moscow man and he's the Moscow man because he
saw the Kremlin and he did not see the Washington monument because then
he's be the Washington man. And he's not.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows

How about this:

Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. 
Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but
unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo.
So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 13:46:06
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
studyshows


On 12/14/2012 5:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere perfectly 
to my definition: Hate to the established and aim to his destruction because it 
is an obstacle for something better that still don? exist. But no matter what 
is it, progress will bring ?t. That? their core believef.

What nonsense.? A strawman man for Alberto to hate.? He wants to see every 
change as destruction and every change as motivated by hate.? Progress is by 
simple definition of the word going from the worse to the better.? Every 
conservative always supposes that they know the one Truth and so it cannot be 
improved upon; they are the true believers - and that applies to the political 
left Maoist/Communists as well as the political right 
Royalist/Papist/Fascists.? They all used their power to consolidate and gain 
more power. 

Brent

-- 
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.

Re: How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?


On 12/15/2012 1:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?
I agree with him 100 %.


I disagree 100% Truth is the agreement between many 
subjectives. A single subjective cannot even know what truth is.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?

Hi meekerdb 

How about Kierkegaard's dictum, "Truth is subjective" ?

I agree with him 100 %.



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 14:33:31
Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
So I have no conflicts with science as long as I  keep in mind what 
kind of truth is referred to.


There is one truth. Let us search it.

There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a 
coherent 'one truth'.

Brent

-- 
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows


On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.


Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid 
talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and 
again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about 
a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a 
Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal 
racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this 
for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no 
basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking 
it personally.

Dear Craig,

Please link some examples. Let me present you with a 
counter-example to your claim: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might consider Penn 
Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree...



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism


On 12/15/2012 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.
Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as.


Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects 
of the British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? 
That he was changing what was commonly accepted as good?


When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 
'commonly accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true 
and beautiful? How about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? 
Also the good old days?


Thus one
subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics.
It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.


Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of 
support. You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression 
happened to have come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore 
liberty. That is just as much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is 
to say 'whoever tries to change anything is a ruthless bastard, but 
whoever enforces the existing order or regressing to a previous order 
is a good and moral person.'


As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good.
Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly
brought in good new things.
But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted
to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists,
screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class.


Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. 
The same goes for attempts to prevent change. There are 
counter-revolutionaries who are just as bloody as revolutionaries.  
The idea that 'young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten 
class' being related to progressive causes is ridiculous. If that were 
the case, then progressive Scandinavia, France, Canada, etc would be 
awash in massacres. Progressives try to eliminate guns, remember?


Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.


Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a 
kid and what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and 
other confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you 
that culture has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and 
I agree that there is something to that beyond just my taste, but 
really it isn't that important. The decay of Amercian culture is not 
the result of what happened 50 years ago or even (much worse in my 
opinion) what happened in the 80s when Reagan era conservatism brought 
back militarism and overconsumption values. If you want to blame 
something, blame overpopulation and the corruption of American 
institutions. The value of human life is indirectly proportionate to 
how many extra people you have and how imbalanced the society is. 
Those are the tensions which make money more important than making 
civilization beautiful.


Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.


Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have 
made life enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. 
They don't destroy anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the 
consenting adults who participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.


If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate 
really was better, and really was God's magic recipe for perpetual 
happiness...why didn't it stay that way? Do you think that Satan 
himself could have convinced truly happy married couples to get 
divorced? That pornography would have been a temptation for people who 
were well served by this Bronze Age ideal? Progress triumphed over 
fundamentalism in the 60s because people were educated enough and 
content enough for the first time to cast off the Calvinist neuroses 
of the 19th century and grow up and out into a real world full of real 
choices - not paint by numbers automatism.


Craig

Dear Craig,

All of these points are instances of taking a particular 
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from it. 
It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply 
wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself into the context with you are

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows

2012-12-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/12/15 Stephen P. King 

> On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>> Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
>>
>
> Sadly, so it seems.


I must side with Craig here... what is sad is your ways of debating here.

Quentin

>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows


On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.


Sadly, so it seems.

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/15/2012 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King -
I believe with Kant that conciousness has structure (the categories)
or else we could not know anything. These categories are ontological,
not mental, and so are a priori.

Dear Roger,

This is where I think that Kant is wrong. To claim an a priori to 
be absolute is to reduce all minds to a singular solipsism confined to 
an absolute apartheid.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows



On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Stephen P. King 
>  
> Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
>

Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid 
talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. 
Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a 
politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right 
Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist 
idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no 
reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in 
science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.

 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Stephen P. King  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
> studyshows
>
>   On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>   That� why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition 
>> that fixes things once and for all.
>>
>
> That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in 
> the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.
>
>
> HEY!
>
> �� Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 
>
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ.
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.

Re: Leibniz is not an immaterialist. Reality is not an illusion.

On 12/15/2012 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.
Leibniz doesn't,  so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant, also a double-sperspective type.  Modern neurophilosophy
is said to be essentially Kantian. Leibniz is close to
Kant in double aspect about a thing:
1) thing "in itself " as perceived mentally (as a monad) from your 
perspective as a phenomenon.
2) thing "for itself," as it actually is physically without a 
perspective (as a scientist would treat it)

For Kant, perception occurs through the joining of these two aspects.
So the thing isn't an illusion, or hallucination.
Any object as seen by you is only seen
phenomenologically, that is, "in itself", as  it appears in
your mind, from your perspective.  But as with
Kant, matter  it is not an illusion, it is a "for itself".
You can still perform precise experiments on the object.
So I can still stub my toe. I don't know about Bruno.

im·ma·te·ri·al·ism (m-tîr--lzm)
/n./
A metaphysical doctrine denying the existence of matter.

*imma·teri·al·ist*/adj.//& n./

immaterialism [??m??t??r???l?z?m]
/n/ /Philosophy/
*1.* (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material world exists only in 
the mind
*2.* (Philosophy) the doctrine that only immaterial substances or 
spiritual beings exist See also idealism 
 [3]

*immaterialist* /n/

Hi Roger,

Bravo! Nice post!

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/15/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King 
*Receiver:* everything-list 
*Time:* 2012-12-15, 11:28:27
*Subject:* Re: Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?

On 12/15/2012 10:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
> Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
> I don't think so, because in that theory mind and
> brain are just different forms or aspects of some
> hard-to-define "stuff". I just can't see computer
> hardware being another aspect of its code.
Hi Roger,

 Bruno advocates for Immaterialism, not Dual Aspect theory. DA
theory would apply to a computer if it can satisfy the
requirements of
organizational and logical closure. Additionally, there is no such
thing
as "stuff" or 'substance' in any non-relative sense in DA theory.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

Re: Progressives and social darwinism

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things. 
> Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
> the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as. 
>

Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects of the 
British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? That he was 
changing what was commonly accepted as good?

When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 
'commonly accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true and 
beautiful? How about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? Also the 
good old days?

> Thus one
> subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics. 
> It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.
>

Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of 
support. You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression 
happened to have come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore 
liberty. That is just as much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is to 
say 'whoever tries to change anything is a ruthless bastard, but whoever 
enforces the existing order or regressing to a previous order is a good and 
moral person.'

>  
> As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good. 
> Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly 
> brought in good new things.
>  
> But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted 
> to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists, 
> screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
> especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
> young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class. 
>

Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. The 
same goes for attempts to prevent change. There are counter-revolutionaries 
who are just as bloody as revolutionaries.  The idea that 'young men think 
nothing of executing a kindergarten class' being related to progressive 
causes is ridiculous. If that were the case, then progressive Scandinavia, 
France, Canada, etc would be awash in massacres. Progressives try to 
eliminate guns, remember?

> Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
> unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
> melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.
>

Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a kid 
and what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and other 
confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you that 
culture has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and I agree 
that there is something to that beyond just my taste, but really it isn't 
that important. The decay of Amercian culture is not the result of what 
happened 50 years ago or even (much worse in my opinion) what happened in 
the 80s when Reagan era conservatism brought back militarism and 
overconsumption values. If you want to blame something, blame 
overpopulation and the corruption of American institutions. The value of 
human life is indirectly proportionate to how many extra people you have 
and how imbalanced the society is. Those are the tensions which make money 
more important than making civilization beautiful.

> Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
> young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
> These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
> Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.
>

Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have made 
life enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. They don't 
destroy anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the consenting adults 
who participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.

If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate really was 
better, and really was God's magic recipe for perpetual happiness...why 
didn't it stay that way? Do you think that Satan himself could have 
convinced truly happy married couples to get divorced? That pornography 
would have been a temptation for people who were well served by this Bronze 
Age ideal? Progress triumphed over fundamentalism in the 60s because people 
were educated enough and content enough for the first time to cast off the 
Calvinist neuroses of the 19th century and grow up and out into a real 
world full of real choices - not paint by numbers automatism.

Craig

>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-13, 11:33:37
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
> emotion

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows

Hi Stephen P. King 

Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
studyshows


On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That? why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition that 
fixes things once and for all.

That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the 
universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.

HEY!

?? Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 



-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion

Hi Stephen P. King -

I believe with Kant that conciousness has structure (the categories) 
or else we could not know anything. These categories are ontological,
not mental, and so are a priori.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 16:18:36
Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion


On 12/13/2012 2:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
So I have no conflicts with science as long as I  keep in mind what 
kind of truth is referred to.


There is one truth. Let us search it.

There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a 
coherent 'one truth'.

Brent
-- 

I agree with this statement 100%. I see it as having long range 
implications and why it is the case should be understood. I have tried to argue 
an informal proof of this idea in terms of the impossibility of determining SAT 
for the Boolean algebraic representation of 'all that exists', but it seems 
that no one understands or is willing to discuss the argument. I see it as 
eliminating the possibility of the a priori or ontologically fundamental fixed 
structure such as what Parminides or Plato would have us believe. This is where 
I disagree mostly with Bruno.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

Anything alive must have consciousness to some degree,
so consciousness always was-- at least to a limited extent.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 19:19:56
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows





On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

?
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what I 
feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being 
manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is 
entirely?onsistent?ith my subjective feeling of freedom.

Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. Indeed, 
we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with different 
agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why would any process 
exist which creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. By extension, that is 
the problem with mechanism and functionalism as well. If you have a perfectly 
good computer which operates a robot navigating a physical world whose purpose 
is to survive and reproduce, what would be the advantage of generating an 
internal representation delusion to some made up 'person' program when the 
computer is already controlling the robot perfectly well. It would be like 
installing an chip inside of your computer to simulate an impressionist painter 
who actually paints tiny paintings for a made up audience of puppets to think 
that they are looking at. Even then, you still have the Explanatory 
Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO CLOSER to closing the gap as now you 
have an interior 'model' which has no mechanism for perception. You have just 
moved the Cartesian Theater inside of biochemistry, but it still explains 
nothing about how you get from endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see 
images through biophotons rather than are simply informed of their quantitative 
significance directly and digitally.



You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary 
side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would have 
been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. 
?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

 > Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.
>

John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.

> I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is
> proposing to explain.  Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a
> transporter and it sends him to Washington.

As John Clark has said people just can not help themselves, in order to
express vague flabby philosophical ideas personal pronouns simply must be
used to hide their vacuous nature at their heart. John Clark is going to
rephrase the above by excising the cancerous pronouns "suppose Bruno is in
Helsinki and Bruno steps into a transporter and it sends Bruno to
Washington". Already much of the mystery is gone and things are much
clearer, but there is still ambiguity about the nature of the transporter.
If the transporter is a airplane then when Bruno goes to Washington Bruno
is no longer in Helsinki, however if the transporter is a duplicating
machine then when Bruno goes to Washington Bruno remains in Helsinki.

> That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in the transporter again
> and it sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back to Helsinki and repeats
> this process many times.  Eventually Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that
> the transporter seems to be random and just sends him to Washington or
> Moscow at random with probability 1/2.
>

Brent Meeker just said that the machine would send Bruno to Washington AND
Moscow many times, and then in the very next sentence Brent Meeker says
that the machine would send Bruno to Washington OR Moscow; and if Bruno had
seen wmwwmwmmmww...mwm then Bruno has certainly seen Washington AND Moscow.
Of course this absurdity can be covered up, and that's where personal
pronouns come in, although John Clark thinks the disguise doesn't work very
well, lipstick can't brink a corpse back to life and personal pronouns
can't give focus to bad ideas.

And John Clark is confused about what direction Brent Meeker believes one
should look to understand this issue, from the present to the past or from
the present to the future. John Clark believes that the important thing is
that no matter how many iterations are done all those Bruno's remember
being Bruno in Helsinki long before Bruno had even seen a duplicating
chamber, and that's why all of them, although different from each other,
are all equally Bruno.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Yes, amoebas and T-cells. Anything that has life must have
intelligence and awareness, although it might be of limited extent.  

Without life, it couldn't animate. Without awareness and inteligence
to understand that perception, it would not know where to go or 
what to do.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 20:25:03
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows

On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:12:24 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 

>> You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary 
>> side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would 
>> have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. 
> 
> 
> Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not 
> evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of 
> awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a 
> outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own 
> standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know 
> something about. Intelligence is prejudice really. 

So that there can be no confusion, what I mean by "intelligent 
behaviour" is behaviour such as looking for food or avoiding 
predators. 

So amoebas then. Or T-cells.

I take "consciousness" and "awareness" as synonymous. 

You can, but I separate them to make the more important distinction. 
Consciousness is multiple sets of awareness, by my meaning.

When 
an animal looks for food I assume that it is aware. The question is, 
why did animals not evolve to do this without awareness, since it 
would have the same effect of propagating their genes either way? An 
answer is that awareness necessarily occurs when the type of behaviour 
that would lead us to suspect awareness occurs. 

So ribosomes then? Chlorophyll? They appear aware to me. Atoms, electrons.. 
They respond to collisions, they organize when they have the opportunity. I 
suspect awareness in every type of behavior. 

Craig

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M4R-nAMLlZoJ.
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.

Leibniz is not an immaterialist. Reality is not an illusion.

Hi Stephen P. King 

As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.  

Leibniz doesn't,  so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics 
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant, also a double-sperspective type.  Modern neurophilosophy
is said to be essentially Kantian. Leibniz is close to
Kant in double aspect about a thing:

1) thing "in itself " as perceived mentally (as a monad) from your perspective 
as a phenomenon.  
2) thing "for itself," as it actually is physically without a perspective (as a 
scientist would treat it)

For Kant, perception occurs through the joining of these two aspects.

So the thing isn't an illusion, or hallucination.
Any object as seen by you is only seen  
phenomenologically, that is, "in itself", as  it appears in 
your mind, from your perspective.  But as with
Kant, matter  it is not an illusion, it is a "for itself".
You can still perform precise experiments on the object. 

So I can still stub my toe. I don't know about Bruno.

im穖a穞e穜i穉l穒sm  (m-t顁--lzm)
n.
A metaphysical doctrine denying the existence of matter.

imma穞eri穉l穒st adj. & n.

immaterialism [??m?'t??r???l?z?m]
n Philosophy
1. (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material world exists only in the mind
2. (Philosophy) the doctrine that only immaterial substances or spiritual 
beings exist See also idealism [3]
immaterialist  n

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 11:28:27
Subject: Re: Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?

On 12/15/2012 10:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
> Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
> I don't think so, because in that theory mind and
> brain are just different forms or aspects of some
> hard-to-define "stuff". I just can't see computer
> hardware being another aspect of its code.
Hi Roger,

 Bruno advocates for Immaterialism, not Dual Aspect theory. DA 
theory would apply to a computer if it can satisfy the requirements of 
organizational and logical closure. Additionally, there is no such thing 
as "stuff" or 'substance' in any non-relative sense in DA theory.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?


On 12/15/2012 10:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
I don't think so, because in that theory mind and
brain are just different forms or aspects of some
hard-to-define "stuff".   I just can't see computer
hardware being another aspect of its code.

Hi Roger,

Bruno advocates for Immaterialism, not Dual Aspect theory. DA 
theory would apply to a computer if it can satisfy the requirements of 
organizational and logical closure. Additionally, there is no such thing 
as "stuff" or 'substance' in any non-relative sense in DA theory.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Conservatives indeed generally resist most
(but not all) change because the changes 
are emotionally based rather than logically based,
and so often do more harm than good.
And waste money.

We will have to wait to see if I am right or not,
but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare
will be at least a financial catastrophe.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 08:25:52
Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy 
shows




On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:14:01 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
I may be between both of you.

I don't think that the hate in progressives is constitutive or inherent. 


I think that his hate of what is held a good beatiful and true is a consequence 
of his belief in a more perfect ggood, bbeatiful and ttrue, and our currently 
held concepts are an obstacle.  



I put double initial letters because for the progressives there is no Good, 
Beatiful and True, but a progress with no end.

When should progress have ended? 1950? 1850? 200 BC? 




Conservatives, like me, believe that God Beatiful and True exist, and our 
lowecase conceptions reflect them.

Human beings like me have seen the evidence that Conservative attitudes prevent 
progress and try to contribute to recovering progress from regressive, 
fear-based oligarchies.

Craig








2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg 



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything 
held to be good, beautiful, or true.

Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth? Progressives 
aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's exactly what 
Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows


You said it:
."...in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of "progress" not found in 
Darwin's idea"



Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that 
explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not 
happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not 
happen. 


That why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than atural selection. 
They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and 
their society according with its will.











2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg 



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology 
before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.


I don`t find this ncompatible ith natural selection (or evolution, as 
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. 
Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:


Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin 
of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because 
evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological 
development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because 
it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian 
belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and 
other biologists popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he 
understood that it is not teleological.


. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we 
are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. 

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring 
awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.

You enjoy the fact that NS made female yenas to behave in ome politically 
correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans 
behave s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That funny.

I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left 
wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's 
something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 
then you have an excuse.

Craig




.


2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg 

doing





-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You receiv

Progressives and social darwinism