Subj : Re: Back again To : JOHN WILSON From : RICHARD M. MEIC Date : Thu Jul 12 2001 08:37 am -> RMM> Art and peotry are expressions of self... -> -> I'm cutting in here. Whew... it's good that you let me know. :o) -> ...but the point here is we must agree upon definitions else -> communication is mere static... I do not mean self in any metaphysical sense. My self is my biological being (which includes my thoughts, feeling etc). -> awe is the result of -> RMM> beauty/ugliness percieved by the individual. The want for truth -> RMM> is perhaps triggered by beauty or awe but the seeking of it is -> RMM> impared by the emotion. -> -> My, but there is a lot here with which to differ! Of course, you and I have never agreed on much... but at least we have always been cordial in our disagreements. -> Associations with perceived ugliness. Actually I included beauty in that also so as to not leave out an important half of perception. -> The "want" for truth? Want? Truth? What is it that you do not understand? -> As to `impared by the emotion.' (THE emotion?) If you conclude this, *I* -> conclude that you have been living far to much or too long on the wrong -> side of the emotional spectrum! Incorrect. I am a very emotional person... I am also very non-emotional in many aspects of my persuits(SP?). I have learned to keep emotion in check where it is detrimental to a desired end (eg. the want of a specific truth). My point was to be that emotion has no place in the persiut of truth. Emotion is a part of us, I do not argue that nor do I wish to remove that. -> RMM> I think you still misunderstand what I mean. Observation is -> RMM> where the questions begin. Without the questions there is no -> RMM> desire to seek answers. Without logic in it's purest form, -> RMM> unclouded by personal feelings, preferences, desires etc, the -> RMM> answers become misguided and less than meaningful. -> -> Yes, I certainly do still misunderstand you.The questions begin at the -> advent of consciousness. The desire for answers has many motivations, -> e.g., allayance of fear, quest for food, desire for the protection of -> progeny... Emotion is needed to ask the questions... emotion is not needed in the search for answers to those questions. My point is simply that whenever emotion played a role in the search for answers we ended up with a very distorted answer that did not depict reality. -> Logic in it's purest form? What on earth is that? Pure logic. -> Aristotleian? Boolian? Cantorian? Logic is man-made. :-) Yes... and? -> RMM> In the past 100 years man has seen more accumulation of knowledge -> RMM> than the rest of human history. -> -> ok. -> -> The end of the Enlightenment -> RMM> marks the separation of emotion and logic. -> -> Nonsense. I was trying to avoid saying a specific word that may result in the topic becoming something I would much rather stay away from at this stage of the game. But you have left me no other choice. The end of the Enlightenment marks the separation of religion (there's that word) and science. Before then little progress in knowledge of reality had been made (when compared with the last 100 years or so). So I suggest that it is best for emotion and logic to be separated when searching for the truth of something. -> Before you return -> RMM> with a Kantism informing me of how the lack of emotion has -> RMM> created the mess we are... -> -> What mess? Sorry, but the mess we are in just happens to be the -> pinnacle of human history: never have so many been blessed with so -> much...beyond the DREAMS of a couple of hundred years ago. Oh... it seems that I have forgotten that you are one of the few people on Earth that is able to keep religion from taking over every aspect of your being. I appologize. I made a strawman agrgument with the statement in question. -> No, what I am *saying* is that disparagment of emotion as a constituant -> part of the human being, the human condition, is but to limit your -> humanity. I am saying that the disparagement of emotion in the search to understand how reality really works is benneficial. I do not intend to turn us all into Volcans. Actually, I have concluded that the Volcans on Star Trek are an impossibility. -> RMM> that science has discovered that created the nuclear bomb, but -> RMM> the APPLICATION of that knowledge, the emotion that a weapon of -> RMM> such power was needed to whipe out two major cities that created -> RMM> the weapon. -> -> ...Savings tens of thousands of American lives. And became the begining -> of the nuclear power industry, radiation therapy (which saved my life - -> ther's MY bias :-) If we look at it in the big picture, millions of people were sacrificed to save mere tens of thousands. Then there's the large sections of land that have been made unlivable, the terrorists that have a better threat than any plane or car bomb... and there's MY bias. ;o) -> RMM> Emotion is indeed important, but not when one wants to know how -> RMM> things really are. -> -> I would, f I were you *immeadiatly* switch your major from -> Elisabethian Poetry to...any thing you'll pass. :-) Why? -> RMM> trod `where other minds rarely go'?", I am forced to say that on -> RMM> some occasions I do feel that I have managed it. -> -> A vivid imigination engendered by fiction is, I suppose profitable -> in some sense, but `where other minds go' I take to mean far more than -> that...to study the mind of Emerson, Browning, Plutarch, Paul, is -> to follow more closely that holy grail of yours: Logic. :-) You asked if I managed to `trod where other minds rarely go' and I have answered with yes and provided an example. -> RMM> As the power of final judge that you have granted me on this -> RMM> particular item I state that your memory may not be all you think -> RMM> it may be. Logically, if you have forgotten some things how would -> RMM> you know you have forgotten them? Thus, how can you be certain -> RMM> that your memory is as good as you claim? :o) -> -> A hoary old question. -> Easily. I am quite proud of my memory, and, as an occultist, I agree -> with the statement about which a book has been written that -> "with the passage of time and the virtue of memory a thing can become -> more than itself; hence progress is possible." -> I am as certain of this as I am that I am sane. (We could argue that, I -> suppose :-) Your sanity is not in question... your memory is. ;o) -> RMM> You may percieve this as hubris, but in my travails... -> -> In your travels or travails? There IS a difference. :-) I do try to use the proper words to convey my meanings. -> And yes, hubris is what springs to mind. Then I suppose it is hubris... justifiable hubris (IMHO). ;) -> Perhaps it -> RMM> is the "M" between Richard and Meic that has thrown you off? Let -> RMM> me present the name as it was displayed: -> -> I think I left before any of this happened. With my super-sharp You were still here... I remember you posting. -> remember not, nor am interested really in such...is there a moderator -> currently? I thought you were it. I do not know now. -> RMM> ... but how do we get this echo back up and in -> RMM> action? How long has it been fallow? -> -> Word of mouth :-) -> -> Weeks, perhaps months, with but sporatic nonsubstantive posts... Well, I noticed that Frank just posted a reply... so I will read what he has to say. We may be well on our way to get this place back in business. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .