Subj : Re: Back again To : JOHN WILSON From : RICHARD M. MEIC Date : Wed Jul 11 2001 11:27 am -> -> I believe logic is important but not all inclusive in human -> RMM> apprehension -> -> of the universe (as best as he is able) -> -> RMM> Logic does seem to me to be the foundation of the equasion. -> -> Truth is found it beauty: art, poetry, feelings of awe and understanding: -> religion and other non-logical sources. Art and peotry are expressions of self... awe is the result of beauty/ugliness percieved by the individual. The want for truth is perhaps triggered by beauty or awe but the seeking of it is impared by the emotion. -> RMM> Observation cannot be ignored. It all begins in observation. -> -> I think observation also is important. Observations are corrected over -> time and there's some truth in the saying that `believing is seeing'; -> an all-to-often human process. I think you still misunderstand what I mean. Observation is where the questions begin. Without the questions there is no desire to seek answers. Without logic in it's purest form, unclouded by personal feelings, preferences, desires etc, the answers become misguided and less than meaningful. -> -> -> , "E" is the inconstant of -> -> RMM> Emotion -> -> -> -> I have no idea of what you mean here. -> -> RMM> Emotion is not a constant, it varies in aspect and degree and is -> RMM> unpredictable. Therefore emotion must be removed. -> -> Removed? I do believe that your `therefore' is not logical :-) -> -> Emotion is a constituant element of human nature: one cannot `remove'it -> and remain human. -> Pure reason has been justly criticized (Kant) :-) -> Besides that: You say it is unpredictable. Then wouldn't you say -> it importsnt that it be studied that it might better be understood? In the past 100 years man has seen more accumulation of knowledge than the rest of human history. The end of the Enlightenment marks the separation of emotion and logic. Before you return with a Kantism informing me of how the lack of emotion has created the mess we are in I must inform you that it is infact emotion guiding the applications of the knowledge discovered by logic that has caused the current mess. It is not the knowledge that science has discovered that created the nuclear bomb, but the APPLICATION of that knowledge, the emotion that a weapon of such power was needed to whipe out two major cities that created the weapon. Emotion is indeed important, but not when one wants to know how things really are. -> RMM> Posturing (IMO) has a firm foundation in hubris, and is usually -> RMM> done in preparation to unnecessarily abuse another. -> -> I'm sure any abuse I get from you will be *necessary* :-) Point taken. ;) -> RMM> Don't tell me that a man of your years has never encountered one -> RMM> of the many out there that fear some types answers. -> -> I can't recall any such encounter. Anger and disbelief, often. No fear. I will address this in a moment... -> Yep. To indicate that you have knowledge of `where other minds rarely go' -> may indicate a paucity of associations :-) -> Want to give indications or examples of where other minds rarely go? I have logically deduced that anything that REALLY displeases most people are avoided by most people. As a writer I must be able to let my mind play the role of ANY type of character, this includes psychos, rapists of any kind etc... this ability is what makes a good writer worth reading (BTW, I have sent shivers up people's spines and had them nearly think me psychotic). Stephen King is that type of writer... ever read his short story "The Library Policeman"? Man, that was really disturbing material... and a place where the average person would not be willing to go. So, to answer the question, "Do you really feel that you *have* trod `where other minds rarely go'?", I am forced to say that on some occasions I do feel that I have managed it. -> RMM> Before I answer that I must first ask if you feel that one has to -> RMM> read philosophy in order to be a philosopher? Is reading enough? -> -> A basic essential: to see `where other minds have gone'... -> Grist for that mill which is your mind... Most of my experience is with those who post on philosophy forums (not just this one), but I have read words of some of the classical philosophers. Currently I am reading a book called "Consilience" by, Edward O. Wilson, where he goes into great lenth on Condorcet, Bacon and a spattering of Kant, Hume and others... but I have not yet finished the book so there may be more. -> All I lay claim to, and you will be the final judge, is -> that my memory and well-read-old-fartishness makes me... -> -> Interesting. :-) .... now I will address the following exchange... -> RMM> Don't tell me that a man of your years has never encountered one -> RMM> of the many out there that fear some types answers. -> -> I can't recall any such encounter. Anger and disbelief, often. No fear. As the power of final judge that you have granted me on this particular item I state that your memory may not be all you think it may be. Logically, if you have forgotten some things how would you know you have forgotten them? Thus, how can you be certain that your memory is as good as you claim? :o) -> RMM> I am a programmer -> RMM> because I have something that most who go through the course do -> RMM> not. -> -> True of most people. Not to say that you are not unique---like everyone -> else. -> -> This thing I have makes me more a philosopher than those -> RMM> with Phds in philosophy. -> -> Glad you know the word "hubris" :-) You may percieve this as hubris, but in my travails I have often found that trained philosophers have less of an imagination and are more parrot-like than those of us who really do philosophize. This is obvious in the words they use, the over referencing of classical philosophers, the over use of latin and the total lack of originality. Yes, I have seen a few formally trained philosophers who do not hold these characteristics, but there are not many. -> How many Ph.D.'s have you examined? The internet is full of them... I did not think to keep a running tally. -> RMM> This one thing has also gotten me into -> RMM> more trouble here with more religious people than I care to count -> RMM> (you know some of them, they are no longer here). This one thing -> RMM> also makes me a writer of fiction. -> -> And this "thing" is? Imagination! Without it a writer is bland and uninteresting, a philosopher is a parot and a programer cannot solve problems. -> I remember only Frank Massingale and Todd Henson as onetime -> participants. Frank is gone!? He was not a one timer but an old timer here. Henson was a real mess and I am personally thankful I do not have to deal with him again. -> I don't recall seeing you. WHAT!? I'm the one Henson accused of wanting to take over the echo and remove all religion from it. I'm the one who begged Null to get off his butt and moderate the flamers. I'm the one who left because Null would not moderate and returned a year or two later, battled with Henson again (by this time Null left and I think you took over as moderator), and I left the echo again... well now I am back. I thought I was unforgettable :( Perhaps it is the "M" between Richard and Meic that has thrown you off? Let me present the name as it was displayed: Richard Meic Or maybe... RICHARD MEIC Does this help at all? :o/ -> I welcome the interchange. Well so do I... but how do we get this echo back up and in action? How long has it been fallow? --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .