> I remember how you were the first to offer helping out in the moderator's
> team when Chris got tired of doing it. You said it in such an unspectacular
> tone that is was bound to be overheard in bigmouth's blue-eye buddy & cousin
> world.
Perhaps my tone will change.
> I've also questioned myself how we'd find out whether Orn is still alive and
> kicking.
And I also, sometimes hoping to see a message pop up from him. Molly's
recent ones were a pleasant surprise.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, James Lynch <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My humor is epic (tragedy).
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:10 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > To each their own.
>> >
>> > On Mar 15, 4:03 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Awash with nettles and kettles alike! Aye, -isms are second to -asms
>> >> as those who can "optimimize" do while those who can't are
>> >> "optimistic". :p Or perhaps mind over meta won't matter if we put the
>> >> carriage before the cargo. I agree on the -isms mostly Rigsy, whenever
>> >> I pick one up it's like the flu, perhaps a little druglike at first
>> >> then "blah", head feels like it's full of syrup. Unfortunately people
>> >> seem to stick with it like an STD!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:35 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > Free will was a nettle to the Papacy as it countered their reliance
>> >> > on
>> >> > Original Sin as a basis for their doctrines and practices and it has
>> >> > the same problems with other "isms".
>> >>
>> >> > On Mar 9, 11:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Will is a consequence of neural activity , one thought leads to
>> >> >> another and
>> >> >> so the chain goes on. Ultimately it is the brain , which is physical
>> >> >> , that
>> >> >> is responsible for all thoughts , consciousness and actions. Whether
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> like it or not, it is matter that is responsible for our psyche.
>> >>
>> >> >> On Saturday, January 7, 2012 8:03:21 AM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is
>> >> >> > wrapped
>> >> >> > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds
>> >> >> > us.
>> >>
>> >> >> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are
>> >> >> > > early-tuned to
>> >> >> > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science is
>> >> >> > > one of
>> >> >> > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960 - I'd
>> >> >> > > guess
>> >> >> > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise many
>> >> >> > > secular
>> >> >> > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership another.
>> >> >> > > Science
>> >> >> > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions or (as
>> >> >> > > in
>> >> >> > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free will
>> >> >> > > we
>> >> >> > > should stop locking up criminals. The question on free will is
>> >> >> > > what
>> >> >> > > life would entail without it and consequent responsibilities
>> >> >> > > denied.
>> >> >> > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should make
>> >> >> > > oursleves
>> >> >> > > works of art.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> I totally agree with you Molly
>> >> >> > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and effect.
>> >> >> > >> > Many of us
>> >> >> > >> > just prefer it there.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes once you made
>> >> >> > >> > > your
>> >> >> > choice and
>> >> >> > >> > > the effects of the choice ,, these results appear that you
>> >> >> > >> > > have no
>> >> >> > >> > > choice,, you just mad it earlier.
>> >> >> > >> > > Allan
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, malcymo
>> >> >> > >> > > <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to
>> >> >> > >> > > > support his
>> >> >> > >> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs
>> >> >> > >> > > > in
>> >> >> > order to,
>> >> >> > >> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however,
>> >> >> > >> > > > believe
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > >> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature.
>> >> >> > >> > > > Many are
>> >> >> > not.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features.
>> >> >> > >> > > > Umberto Eco in
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > >> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our
>> >> >> > >> > > > attention
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > >> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth
>> >> >> > >> > > > and
>> >> >> > there is
>> >> >> > >> > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical
>> >> >> > >> > > > beliefs the
>> >> >> > >> > > > required elements are found.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down.
>> >> >> > >> > > > This may
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > >> > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They
>> >> >> > >> > > > are
>> >> >> > >> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first
>> >> >> > >> > > > place. Also,
>> >> >> > >> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea
>> >> >> > >> > > > is so
>> >> >> > >> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a
>> >> >> > >> > > > reality.
>> >> >> > Even
>> >> >> > >> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the
>> >> >> > >> > > > idea. So
>> >> >> > >> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the
>> >> >> > >> > > > question of
>> >> >> > >> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could
>> >> >> > >> > > > have
>> >> >> > been
>> >> >> > >> > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some
>> >> >> > >> > > > eminent
>> >> >> > >> > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can
>> >> >> > >> > > > sit
>> >> >> > >> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature
>> >> >> > >> > > > of a
>> >> >> > myth.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear
>> >> >> > >> > > > rational to us
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > >> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of
>> >> >> > >> > > > virtuous
>> >> >> > >> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the
>> >> >> > >> > > > idea of
>> >> >> > free
>> >> >> > >> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must
>> >> >> > >> > > > accept our
>> >> >> > >> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will
>> >> >> > >> > > > defies the
>> >> >> > >> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and
>> >> >> > >> > > > effect.
>> >> >> > It
>> >> >> > >> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that
>> >> >> > >> > > > some things
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > >> > > > are.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually
>> >> >> > discover, if
>> >> >> > >> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute
>> >> >> > >> > > > how
>> >> >> > should we
>> >> >> > >> > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live
>> >> >> > >> > > > with
>> >> >> > such a
>> >> >> > >> > > > 'truth'?
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > --
>> >> >> > >> > > (
>> >> >> > >> > > )
>> >> >> > >> > > |_D Allan
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>> >>
>> >> >> On Saturday, January 7, 2012 8:03:21 AM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is
>> >> >> > wrapped
>> >> >> > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds
>> >> >> > us.
>> >>
>> >> >> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are
>> >> >> > > early-tuned to
>> >> >> > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science is
>> >> >> > > one of
>> >> >> > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960 - I'd
>> >> >> > > guess
>> >> >> > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise many
>> >> >> > > secular
>> >> >> > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership another.
>> >> >> > > Science
>> >> >> > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions or (as
>> >> >> > > in
>> >> >> > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free will
>> >> >> > > we
>> >> >> > > should stop locking up criminals. The question on free will is
>> >> >> > > what
>> >> >> > > life would entail without it and consequent responsibilities
>> >> >> > > denied.
>> >> >> > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should make
>> >> >> > > oursleves
>> >> >> > > works of art.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> I totally agree with you Molly
>> >> >> > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and effect.
>> >> >> > >> > Many of us
>> >> >> > >> > just prefer it there.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes once you made
>> >> >> > >> > > your
>> >> >> > choice and
>> >> >> > >> > > the effects of the choice ,, these results appear that you
>> >> >> > >> > > have no
>> >> >> > >> > > choice,, you just mad it earlier.
>> >> >> > >> > > Allan
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, malcymo
>> >> >> > >> > > <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to
>> >> >> > >> > > > support his
>> >> >> > >> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs
>> >> >> > >> > > > in
>> >> >> > order to,
>> >> >> > >> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however,
>> >> >> > >> > > > believe
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > >> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature.
>> >> >> > >> > > > Many are
>> >> >> > not.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features.
>> >> >> > >> > > > Umberto Eco in
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > >> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our
>> >> >> > >> > > > attention
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > >> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth
>> >> >> > >> > > > and
>> >> >> > there is
>> >> >> > >> > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical
>> >> >> > >> > > > beliefs the
>> >> >> > >> > > > required elements are found.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down.
>> >> >> > >> > > > This may
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > >> > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They
>> >> >> > >> > > > are
>> >> >> > >> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first
>> >> >> > >> > > > place. Also,
>> >> >> > >> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea
>> >> >> > >> > > > is so
>> >> >> > >> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a
>> >> >> > >> > > > reality.
>> >> >> > Even
>> >> >> > >> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the
>> >> >> > >> > > > idea. So
>> >> >> > >> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the
>> >> >> > >> > > > question of
>> >> >> > >> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could
>> >> >> > >> > > > have
>> >> >> > been
>> >> >> > >> > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some
>> >> >> > >> > > > eminent
>> >> >> > >> > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can
>> >> >> > >> > > > sit
>> >> >> > >> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature
>> >> >> > >> > > > of a
>> >> >> > myth.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear
>> >> >> > >> > > > rational to us
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > >> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of
>> >> >> > >> > > > virtuous
>> >> >> > >> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the
>> >> >> > >> > > > idea of
>> >> >> > free
>> >> >> > >> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must
>> >> >> > >> > > > accept our
>> >> >> > >> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will
>> >> >> > >> > > > defies the
>> >> >> > >> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and
>> >> >> > >> > > > effect.
>> >> >> > It
>> >> >> > >> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that
>> >> >> > >> > > > some things
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > >> > > > are.
>> >>
>> >> >> > >> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually
>> >> >> > discover, if
>> >> >> > >> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment