Re: Good is that which enhances life
On 03 Sep 2012, at 17:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: My experience is that canabis increases my motivation and creativity. Am I an exception? You are certainly not, as the guitar boy provided a sample of people inspired by cannabis. Cannabis is also useful to break negative connotations that life can build. In my case cannabis has helped me a long time ago, to cure a nausea I did have just thinking about math and logic. It makes me coming back to it, after a 5 years of abandon. Two year ago, one week of intense cannabis consumption has cured a sciatica, completely, where two month of heavy medication did not succeed to improve the situation. The doctor did not understand how that was possible, as he thought an operation was unavoidable. It was a strong sciatica with a big hernia, and the paralysis of the left leg, but it disappears completely. Cannabis is crazily efficacious in the medical domain. Bruno On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking in perspective. For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed Cannabis reduces motivation. The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this in his book Mr. Nice, as a very motivated trafficker and smoker of marijuana in the 70s and 80s, that (I paraphrase) when on Cannabis, its just very difficult to do the things you really don't want to do. It's the plants way of reminding us that we are free to pursue the things we want to, and if we're just more serious about being lazy enough, we can probably devise ways of securing our lives with less effort. But doing the things we like, Cannabis is a motivator. It's natural that somebody working in an job-environment exploiting them, will not want to work if they take a couple of puffs. I don't think they're demotivated, but if stagnation and depression persists, they should probably relax more, reorient their lives to making a more enjoyable living, more easily. And if not they should forget Cannabis. It also forces teens to become inventive with their laziness, as they go seek out liminal cracks between the edifices of civilization and nature. The places teenagers retreat to, when they get stoned: forest edges, panoramic vistas in nature, some magical hidden spot in a park. In the age of getting lost in Facebook and fancy mobile phones, this escapist behavior is relatively benign, if not positive for development of mind. Sure it can be dangerous when people get locked in their own boredom and don't pick up the sense of letting go of fixed ideals, to pursue something better; but mostly they do and relative to background of other addictions and the behavioral modifications they produce, the dangers are relatively small, and that a cannabis ideology paired with an open mind, is one of the few dependencies, that reverberate beyond personal satisfaction and create benefits for society, as all the books, poetry, art, thinking, and music it has inspired, are aimed at relaxing our fixations with threats, evils, making judgements and instead, chilling us out a bit. This type of dis-inhibition is more benign than alcohol. I find media consumption, gambling, and nursing of the majority of obsessions and fetishes to some form of fixed ideal people lock themselves up with, much more problematic. So yes, we agree on the prohibition things, that there are danger etc. but I thought it should be noted equally, that there are benefits for more than billionaires and rich people, and that these are not exceptional in any way. It's just not talked about for obvious reasons, even though we all benefit from the creative attitudes of beatles, stones, hendrix, or pink floyd etc. once in awhile. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as Cannabis. I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 :) Paraphrasing old Nietsche: Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. To which I would add: They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?). Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all drugs were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody would know that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all)
Re: Good is that which enhances life
On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as Cannabis. I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 :) Paraphrasing old Nietsche: Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. To which I would add: They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?). Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all drugs were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody would know that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all) compared to crack, meth, and krokodil (except it would not exist in that case). If cannabis was not illegal, nobody would ever hide its many medicinal qualities. The deep point is that food and drug is not the business of any collectivity. People should be judged on the harm they do, not on the speculation that they might react in some way with some products. Prohibition is dangerous as it kills democracy, notably. Like the NDAA, fortunately suspended by the supreme court. It would have made possible to detain without trial, for arbitrary time anyone belonging to a fuzzy category of suspects of threat, like if the human rights were not universal: it makes no sense to delimitate a class of people to whom the human rights and the constitutional right don't apply. Prohibition and NDAA belongs to the family of tyrannic technic to maintain anti-democratic powers. Bruno -- 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.
Re: Good is that which enhances life
I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking in perspective. For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed Cannabis reduces motivation. The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this in his book Mr. Nice, as a very motivated trafficker and smoker of marijuana in the 70s and 80s, that (I paraphrase) when on Cannabis, its just very difficult to do the things you really don't want to do. It's the plants way of reminding us that we are free to pursue the things we want to, and if we're just more serious about being lazy enough, we can probably devise ways of securing our lives with less effort. But doing the things we like, Cannabis is a motivator. It's natural that somebody working in an job-environment exploiting them, will not want to work if they take a couple of puffs. I don't think they're demotivated, but if stagnation and depression persists, they should probably relax more, reorient their lives to making a more enjoyable living, more easily. And if not they should forget Cannabis. It also forces teens to become inventive with their laziness, as they go seek out liminal cracks between the edifices of civilization and nature. The places teenagers retreat to, when they get stoned: forest edges, panoramic vistas in nature, some magical hidden spot in a park. In the age of getting lost in Facebook and fancy mobile phones, this escapist behavior is relatively benign, if not positive for development of mind. Sure it can be dangerous when people get locked in their own boredom and don't pick up the sense of letting go of fixed ideals, to pursue something better; but mostly they do and relative to background of other addictions and the behavioral modifications they produce, the dangers are relatively small, and that a cannabis ideology paired with an open mind, is one of the few dependencies, that reverberate beyond personal satisfaction and create benefits for society, as all the books, poetry, art, thinking, and music it has inspired, are aimed at relaxing our fixations with threats, evils, making judgements and instead, chilling us out a bit. This type of dis-inhibition is more benign than alcohol. I find media consumption, gambling, and nursing of the majority of obsessions and fetishes to some form of fixed ideal people lock themselves up with, much more problematic. So yes, we agree on the prohibition things, that there are danger etc. but I thought it should be noted equally, that there are benefits for more than billionaires and rich people, and that these are not exceptional in any way. It's just not talked about for obvious reasons, even though we all benefit from the creative attitudes of beatles, stones, hendrix, or pink floyd etc. once in awhile. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as Cannabis. I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 :) Paraphrasing old Nietsche: Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. To which I would add: They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?). Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all drugs were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody would know that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all) compared to crack, meth, and krokodil (except it would not exist in that case). If cannabis was not illegal, nobody would ever hide its many medicinal qualities. The deep point is that food and drug is not the business of any collectivity. People should be judged on the harm they do, not on the speculation that they might react in some way with some products. Prohibition is dangerous as it kills democracy, notably. Like the NDAA, fortunately suspended by the supreme court. It would have made possible to detain without trial, for arbitrary time anyone belonging to a fuzzy category of suspects of threat, like if the human rights were not universal: it makes no sense to delimitate a class of people to whom the human rights and the constitutional right don't apply. Prohibition and NDAA belongs to the family of tyrannic technic to maintain anti-democratic powers. Bruno -- 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,
Re: Good is that which enhances life
My experience is that canabis increases my motivation and creativity. Am I an exception? On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking in perspective. For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed Cannabis reduces motivation. The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this in his book Mr. Nice, as a very motivated trafficker and smoker of marijuana in the 70s and 80s, that (I paraphrase) when on Cannabis, its just very difficult to do the things you really don't want to do. It's the plants way of reminding us that we are free to pursue the things we want to, and if we're just more serious about being lazy enough, we can probably devise ways of securing our lives with less effort. But doing the things we like, Cannabis is a motivator. It's natural that somebody working in an job-environment exploiting them, will not want to work if they take a couple of puffs. I don't think they're demotivated, but if stagnation and depression persists, they should probably relax more, reorient their lives to making a more enjoyable living, more easily. And if not they should forget Cannabis. It also forces teens to become inventive with their laziness, as they go seek out liminal cracks between the edifices of civilization and nature. The places teenagers retreat to, when they get stoned: forest edges, panoramic vistas in nature, some magical hidden spot in a park. In the age of getting lost in Facebook and fancy mobile phones, this escapist behavior is relatively benign, if not positive for development of mind. Sure it can be dangerous when people get locked in their own boredom and don't pick up the sense of letting go of fixed ideals, to pursue something better; but mostly they do and relative to background of other addictions and the behavioral modifications they produce, the dangers are relatively small, and that a cannabis ideology paired with an open mind, is one of the few dependencies, that reverberate beyond personal satisfaction and create benefits for society, as all the books, poetry, art, thinking, and music it has inspired, are aimed at relaxing our fixations with threats, evils, making judgements and instead, chilling us out a bit. This type of dis-inhibition is more benign than alcohol. I find media consumption, gambling, and nursing of the majority of obsessions and fetishes to some form of fixed ideal people lock themselves up with, much more problematic. So yes, we agree on the prohibition things, that there are danger etc. but I thought it should be noted equally, that there are benefits for more than billionaires and rich people, and that these are not exceptional in any way. It's just not talked about for obvious reasons, even though we all benefit from the creative attitudes of beatles, stones, hendrix, or pink floyd etc. once in awhile. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as Cannabis. I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 :) Paraphrasing old Nietsche: Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. To which I would add: They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?). Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all drugs were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody would know that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all) compared to crack, meth, and krokodil (except it would not exist in that case). If cannabis was not illegal, nobody would ever hide its many medicinal qualities. The deep point is that food and drug is not the business of any collectivity. People should be judged on the harm they do, not on the speculation that they might react in some way with some products. Prohibition is dangerous as it kills democracy, notably. Like the NDAA, fortunately suspended by the supreme court. It would have made possible to detain without trial, for arbitrary time anyone belonging to a fuzzy category of suspects of threat, like if the human rights were not universal: it makes no sense to delimitate a class of people to whom the human rights and the constitutional right don't apply. Prohibition and NDAA belongs to the family of tyrannic technic to maintain anti-democratic powers.
Re: Good is that which enhances life
It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as Cannabis. I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 :) Paraphrasing old Nietsche: Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. To which I would add: They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. -- 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: Good is that which enhances life
On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/ insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical
Re: Re: Good is that which enhances life
Hi Richard and Bruno Marchal, IMHO if pot enhances life, it is good --at least for that activity, such as in treating cancer. I suppose relaxation would also be good, not sure. But the danger is that pot if smoked regularly may become addictive, which is not good since it diminishes life. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:09:01 Subject: Re: Good is that which enhances life On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self
Re: Good is that which enhances life
On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard and Bruno Marchal, IMHO if pot enhances life, it is good --at least for that activity, such as in treating cancer. I suppose relaxation would also be good, not sure. But the danger is that pot if smoked regularly may become addictive, which is not good since it diminishes life. There are no evidences for this. On the contrary. The oldest woman ever in the world, when asked what is her secret of health, said that she smokes one joint everyday since the age of 13. She was 118 years old. She dies recently ... in good health, said the doctor. A case is not a statistics, but the statistics confirm this. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:09:01 Subject: Re: Good is that which enhances life On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/ power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My
Re: Good is that which enhances life
Richard: with all my agreement so far, would you continue: 2. Have you ever been pregnant? if not, do not talk into the topic! 3. Are you on Medicare? if you are on the 'aristocratic' -- (so called Cadillac) - governmental health care system, --- don't talk into it! 4. Are you on Social Security? - if you are enjoying some - (governmental) extra pension, don't talk into Social Sec. 5. Have you ever been a working (struggling) single mom? - if not, don't pretend to talk about their problems. 6. Have you ever been unemployed, seeking a job ? if not, do not talk into the problem. and so on and on. JM On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes
Re: Good is that which enhances life
John, 1. Yes 2. No 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No 6. Yes and so on. Richard On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Richard: with all my agreement so far, would you continue: 2. Have you ever been pregnant? if not, do not talk into the topic! 3. Are you on Medicare? if you are on the 'aristocratic' -- (so called Cadillac) - governmental health care system, --- don't talk into it! 4. Are you on Social Security? - if you are enjoying some - (governmental) extra pension, don't talk into Social Sec. 5. Have you ever been a working (struggling) single mom? - if not, don't pretend to talk about their problems. 6. Have you ever been unemployed, seeking a job ? if not, do not talk into the problem. and so on and on. JM On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power
Good is that which enhances life
I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems
Re: Good is that which enhances life
Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according
