Re: "Natural Law" (was "META: Rhetoric")

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:58:51 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "RE: extropian investment: Alteon (long)"

    Greg Burch wrote:

    > > From: Emlyn O'regan
    >> .... we don't believe in natural law, do we? (I hope not)
     
    > In a limited sense, I do. ....
    ....
    > I'd say that certain principles of "cognitive liberty" are inherent in
    > the problem of moral interaction among information systems, especially
    > self-aware information systems. Deep in the archives is a discussion
    > between me and Robert Bradbury about this -- years ago...

    I'm interested in the topic and took a quick look in the archives
    Greg, but so far no banana for this monkey. Got a search hint or two?

     
    > In a connected sense, there may well be "natural laws" of rhetoric, in
    > the same sense that there are truly "real" (but flexible) rules
    > connecting structure and function, much as there are in engineering. In
    > this regard, one can see a hierarchical structure of
    >
    > nature --> morality --> law --> rhetoric --> art
    >
    > in the same way one sees a hierarchical structure of
    >
    > nature --> science --> engineering --> art
    >
    > Which last observation itself is so vague that it is more in the nature
    > of (ahem) a haiku than a philosophical observation. (Wasn't Anders
    > saying something about adjusting his powdered wig the other day ... ?)

    Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 14:06:24 MDT