Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 03:48:25 -0800
From: "Jason Joel Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Placebo effect not physical
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fabulich" <email@example.com>
D> I clearly didn't mean 2-4 when I said that principles were arrays of
D> symbols. (And, hey, if you'd had some charity, maybe you could have
D> seen that. This is an area where bad ethos will get you in trouble.
D> Seriously, try to engage with respect and empathy. Try to figure out
D> how I could possibly be right. You just might figure out what I meant
D> for a change.)
J>Whilst skimming, I stumbled across your above passage, and I must confess:
J>it gave me pause: it reflects a sentiment I too have held on not
J>We are all guilty, perhaps, of bad ethos, or rather, we are heavily given
J>engaging each other as antagonists-- it is oft times more important for us
J>to be perceived as right rather than to illuminate rightness.
Hi Dan & Jason,
I am as worried by bad arguments as bad ethos (which I deny utterly
by the way) .... and I will ruthlessly pursue the same to destruction.
This is not a personal thing, I am totally detached, as when I play in
chess tournaments .. win the game first, have a drink with the loser in
the bar afterwards.
J>It is very natural, and very human, especially for us damnable eggheads.
J>However, in our continual scrambling for rightness, we pave over the
J>synergies we are capable of creating through collaborative effort.
J>strangely, positive feedback appears to extinguish conversation in this
J>mailing-list environment-- competition gives rise to far more dynamism.
J>certain the longest and most recurring threads are those that are the most
Jason, if you have been following this thread you would realise that
several topics have already been "agreed" or abandoned as
pointless (free-will vs determinism &c.) and what is left are a few
core issues which are not resolvable by synergy ....
J>It would be interesting, I think, if we were more often able to expend
J>energy in pursuit of uplifting the arguments of others. Never fear, I'm
J>talking about suspending skepticism, but, rather, seeking rightness. We
J>might more often cash in on the benefits of collaboration-- one need only
J>look to the markets to see the benefits of enhancing local collaboration
J>whilst maintaining aggressiveness in the macro-dynamic.
The markets, since you draw attention to them, are a prime example of
companies marketing their own particular brands in direct competition.
Occasionally there are collaborations, more often takeovers, and in
fact I wondered why Dan persists with defunct computational analogies
when I suggested MVT offers a much richer vein topursue as his senior
The markets, in order to keep fresh and dynamic, also demand bankruptcies
and closures. Conventionalist philosophy is bankrupt, and I intend to
in order tosave future generations of students from wasting big tranches
of their fee cash and time.
J>I am deeply in favor of individual empowerment, but also recognize the
J>of compromise in the face of holistic goal achievement.
Yes, but we are trying for truth-statements, not a compromise for the
sake of it. I claim that MVT answers various philosophical problems
although the answers are new, and not what academic philosophers
are looking for exactly, since they have a vested interest in keeping the
debate running ..... their jobs depend on perpetuating problems, not on
J>Ok, so now my 2001 resolution with regard to this list is to spend just
J>a -wee- bit more time seeking out my opponent's rightness. Even better:
J>lets find a way to turn that approach into a positive attractor state with
J>regards to the volume of our dialogue.
Sure, I welcome any feedback on MVT, critical or otherwise, which throws
new light on the issues and helps this field to make progress. But it
is also important to refute wrongs and linguistic obfustification, even if
this means hitting at peoples' cherished beliefs and self-image reliant on
particular bits of their internal dialogue. Dan was inaccurate to accuse me
of name calling, but I apologise if I have caused anyone emotional turmoil
by challenging deeply held convictions. Another strand of our discussion is
about whether "will" plays any role in philosophical argument, and what
if any exist. Dan's play for sympathy as 'underdog' is quite legitimate ...
but I won't be diverted from my search for truth, or roll over like a wuss!
My www.att.ac magazine for academic reform is appearing in paper
format now, and I am ramping up the campaign for closure of Philosophy
departments .... Leeds Univ. in particular ... as well exposing bribery
scandals in Eastern European academia, plus ways that UK admissions
for Master's courses are being conned by fake overseas first degree
references, and so on. Any other news items of academic malpractice
or areas needing reform, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
MVT (third/primal eye) all-conquering philosophy that liberates on hearing:
a natural & empirical road to so-called 'supernatural' empowerment.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:17 MDT