--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00186 Date: 04/16/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 06:29am \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: Reflections on modernity FM> In a world so dependent upon fuel and technology it is not difficult to FM> imagine, I think, a breakdown of enormous proportions that would strain FM> the collective intelligence of that technology to maintain equilibrium. FM> Artifacts might not be so local and so rapidly buried under accumulative FM> debris and life might more quickly approach the "primative" than has FM> been imagined. WE> Just consider Mir, a totally technological environment. Just wait until WE> the next century, Earth will be looking like Mir. Greenhouse is just WE> one example of the problems mounting. Overpopulation another. Shall I WE> go on? Just be glad that we lived so long already. Maybe. Maybe not. The future is still not ours to predict. That's left to the psychics and prophets. We make our myths, just as the ancients did, based on what they understood that they knew and didn't know and a ensitivity for the difference. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00187 Date: 04/16/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 05:24am \/To: BOB EYER (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK 05:24:1104/16/98 BE> Incidentally, when I get time next month, I'm going back into BE> Holysmoke to continue my crusade . Maybe you'd like to join me. BE> Those people need to be saved, rescued from their errors. Thanks, but no thanks, Bob. I'm quite content with the PHIL echo and here really are a number of people here who are quite intelligent, rational and appreciative of good conversation. The ones who are not sort of come and go and none is really able to dominate the echo. I have made a firm commitment to myself to stay completely clear of ALL of the "bible" or "religious" echoes. Just not my cup of tea. Have fun. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00188 Date: 04/16/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 07:25am \/To: KEITH KNAPP (Read 0 times) Subj: The Evil that is Religion FR> And I might add that you can't join the KKK and then demand you're KK> not FR>a racist. If that analogy remains unclear, I'll fill in the KK> blanks: If FR>you willingly join an evil cult knowing full well what KK> the cult stands FR>for, you are in agreement with it. And if _that_ KK> remains unclear, I'll FR>try again: If you're a Christian who knows KK> what the history of your cult FR>is, you are in agreement with what it KK> stands for. KK> C'mon, Fred, that's scrambled reasoning. Many of the eugenicists were KK> Darwinists. By your reasoning, therefore Darwinists are eugenicists. FR> Pretending Christianity's history doesn't exist is silly. KK> Okay, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were atheists. Now, try replacing KK> "Christian" with "atheist" in your above reasoning. When you get to the KK> part where accepting atheism means you are in agreement with genocide, KK> you may begin to suspect a flaw in the reasoning. Noted, Keith. Again, the voice of reason and careful analysis wins out over overheated passion and unreason. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00189 Date: 04/15/98 From: REV_NULL Time: 11:15am \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: !!! Hello Dick. R>> I did, however, suggest that the routed netmail you R>> supposedly sent me a while back got lost. Please be careful in R>> paraphrasing me, I don't care for having my words taken out of R>> context RM> I recall, now, finding it very interesting that it only happened to RM> those netmails (and the email I sent as well). I received, and responded to, your internet email. Have you forgotten this as well? If you consider it interesting that routed netmail might get lost, then perhaps you haven't become used to this fact. I expect one half of all routed netmail to get lost en route (that's the nature of the beast), so if I have anything really important to say, I make it a policy to send the netmail direct/crash. R>> You seem to have selective memory as well as a belligerent R>> attitude. RM> "Belligerent"? This is far more hilarious, Scott. Care to take a RM> vote on how "belligerent" I am? What does voting have to do with it, Dick? R>> I have some information which will punch a hole in some of the R>> statements you are making and may make you embarassed about it. I R>> was thinking of giving you this information, but I think it will R>> be more amusing to watch you continue to follow the path that R>> you're currently on RM> Why am I not surprised, that you would use this tactic? ;) Probably because you've gained some insight into my personality. RM> Here is my philosophy of what I am doing here: RM> 1) The moderator has decreed that PHIL remain in a state of anarchy. RM> 2) One individual has actually told the moderator to "fuck off". RM> From these two points I gather that if it is okay to tell the RM> moderator to "fuck off", then it is quite alright to hound the RM> moderator at will without any risk of being banned from the echo. RM> Furthermore, if by some freak chance the one doing the hounding gets RM> banned, then it stands to reason that the individual that told him to RM> "fuck off" gets banned as well. ;) Why are you stating that last implication? I can easily conceive of banning you while not banning Andrew, without Universe collapsing due to a failure of internal consistency. RM> Still amused? Actually I'm more confused than amused at this point (though, as usual, there is an element of amusement). Are you telling me that you are trying to goad me into banning you so that I will then feel compelled to ban Andrew as well? I do not seem to grok this path you have been following -- it may have to do with my eristic temperament and your apparent aneristic temperament. Rev_Null --- GoldED 2.50+ * Origin: The Void (1:206/2717) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00190 Date: 04/15/98 From: MR. RIGOR Time: 11:40am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfection Revisited Hello All. It's me again. I wonder if anything has caused more psychological damage to humans than pseudo concepts such as "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", and other poorly defined ideas which are stretched to the point of being ridiculous. My ex girlfriend seemed to be damaged by such ideas, and I wasn't a good enough therapist to help her dispose of these notions, which contributed to our breakup. I'm thinking of filing a class action lawsuit against western religions for all the bullcrap they've been putting in peoples' brains. Do you guys think I have a chance of winning? Mr. Rigor "I tell you: one must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing star!" -- Nietzsche --- GoldED 2.50+ * Origin: The Void (1:206/2717) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00191 Date: 04/16/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 12:49pm \/To: MR. RIGOR (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfection Revisited MR> I'm thinking of filing a class action lawsuit against western religions MR> for all the bullcrap they've been putting in peoples' brains. Do you MR> guys think I have a chance of winning? I seriously doubt it (grin). You'd have an extremely hard time proving that they've done a very good job. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00192 Date: 04/16/98 From: HAL WHITE Time: 01:00pm \/To: KEITH KNAPP (Read 0 times) Subj: Freud Hi Keith, -> FR>His belief in an "Id" hasn't borne out but I think he was spot on -> when FR>it comes to the Ego and the subconcious. -> KK> I agree with others that the discovery of the unconscious is one of -> the greatest discoveries of all time. And that's the weirdest thing -> about it: something that's an ordinary, central part of our lives had -> to be discovered. Sort of like a flashlight that's only conscious It seems you may be suggesting Freud discovered the unconscious. This is not the case. It's referred to in many places, e.g. Nietsche, and (I'm told} Liebnitz. Neither did F discover childhood sexuality. None of this is to say that I agree with Mr. Rice that F is to be discredited because, early in his career he believed that the nose played a key role in neurosis. This is a kind of smear, or at any rate does not go to the points {F's contribution} at issue. Atheists of old said some pretty weird things too. Hal. --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00193 Date: 04/15/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 09:06pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: "Biological Consciousness" @@>>>> William Elliot on "Biological Consciousness" DM>> What I meant was that "merely human" consciousness is physical DM>> ...(likely) of no more meaning (though more interesting) than DM>> any other organ talents. WE> A conjecture without any substantive evidence one way or the other. I think we can develope enough circumstantial evidence to satisfy me (at least for now), I don't know how much or what kind you would be willing to accept or even explore. DM>> Whatever specialized functions it was developed to satisfy, there DM>> is no information in my database to indicate an any DM>> "MORE-OR-LESS- OF-IT. WE> Don't understand. *MORE* than just a "PHYSICAL" (beyond an electrochemical device). *LESS* just a "PHYSICAL" ( electrochemical device). DM>> I "think" our differences are (perhaps) those of how we measure DM>> it's IMPORTANCE. Your yardstick (seems so?) indicates a value for DM>> consciousness that my yardstick is not yet long enough to measure. DM>> I enjoy consciousness, and wonder about it. You do the same but DM>> add other more epic extensions of meaning/importance to it. WE> Yup without consciousness there'd be no universe that I'd be WE> concerned about. Agreed as a condition of death when what you say becomes true. I *think* the universe would still be there and not caring whether you're concerned or not. Perhaps a mite selfish as "conscious thought" while others alive, might still be concerned with the universe. I DO struggle with this puzzle of transitory importance whereas we, individual or species, do make a bit of noise and poof, we AND our consciousness are gone. As long as I'm *alive* I would find the universe interesting whether my consciousness is biological (likely) or some more or less unknown other. For me, reality does not seem a "meaning less", if its primary device mechanism turns out to be "just another" (to die) organ. It is all some fun while lasting "....our species, our perk" !! ......................Perhaps dolphins have even more fun ??? NOTE: If we are including *religious insights* into the "consciousness packaging", I back off ........such of private wisdoms *presently* seeming alien to what I can believe. Also! some years back, my wife during high fever, experienced an "out of body experience" that she said seemed "life real". In it she looked down upon herself. We never thought it more than a dream type happening (Mentioned as an only shot at consciousness projected out of its fleshen roots). Though I oft read about such "otherish" notions of "consciousness", (things akin to near death experiences), I remain some ............skeptical. DM>> Consciousness is some fuzzy for me to nail down, but as I said DM>> originally, it does not "knowingly" exist beyond the life of DM>> its container, and so would suggest reasonable assumptions. WE> From prehistory to tomorrow, there's no available definition. WE might ANYWAY *work with* some assumed (still fragmentary) models and a bit of reasoning. Such an approach might be first steps in deciphering "consciousness" into what I believe is just another (much more novel) physical organ (or your "perhaps" MORE in a developing view). DM>> If you have other exhibits of evidence, or good reasoning, for DM>> a MORE-OF-IT, my attention is lively. WE> A good knock on the head will give you a 'less of it', and for WE> 'more of it', a bucket of cold water. .....yes that might work .....I'll assume we either don't agree OR mutual clarity is not likely at this time. ..............Pardon' ? @@>--- Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00194 Date: 04/15/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 09:07pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: "Reflections on Modernity" @@> From a Frank Masingill to ALL @@> on "Reflections on modernity" FM> The other morning, in need of a few groceries, I went alone very early FM> while the wife slept to a nearby Supermarket to make a few purchases. FM> While making my way around the aisles selecting an article here and FM> there a strong impulse came over me of awe in the midst of such a FM> representative structure of the delicate balance of commerce and FM> technology that placed me there at the end of the human food chain for FM> those of us "fortunate" (?) enough to have the means of restocking the FM> pantry (refrigerator and freezer in many instances). I thought: FM> How quickly it could all end as though in a flash of lightening. FM> A sudden diminution in the availability of fuel, a breakdown (now FM> capable of having >earth-wide proportions) in labor relations, even FM> an unexpected shift in the distance of the earth from the sun or FM> other phenomena could have throngs of people suddenly undergoing FM> suffering and death. How quickly and efficiently could such agencies FM>as the Red Cross and governmental bodies mobilize for such FM> an event and how effective could they be if the force for breakdown FM> proved to be long enough and destructive enough? Suppose the forces FM> favoring organization of the apparatus became so crippled that a FM> civilized society could only degenerate into mass death of the kind FM> that we've seen occuring in some of the "third world" countries due FM> to political antagonisms. FM> In a world so dependent upon fuel and technology it is not difficult FM> to imagine, I think, a breakdown of enormous proportions that would FM> strain the collective intelligence of that technology to maintain FM> equilibrium. Artifacts might not be so local and so rapidly buried FM> under accumulative debris and life might more quickly approach the FM> "primative" than has been imagined. FM> More later. ........Yes, a good basis for "quantified everyday hedonism" @@>--- Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00195 Date: 04/15/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 11:43pm \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: "Curable Souls" @@> On Apr-14-98 Day Brown wrote to David Martorana @@> on "curable Souls" DM>>> Curable soul ??? If I got any fragments of it correct, Socrates DM>>> DM>> "implied" (as later polished by Plato) the soul could be made DM>>> right (cured) if its three parts could be brought into balance? DB> If we exist on a holodeck David, then there is also a backup copy DB> in the computer that projects reality, and that copy continues to DB> exist after death. After death, awareness remains with that copy DB> in cyberspace, which unlike the mind, has a perfect memory. DB> Given that no*body* will have a body after death, what will souls DB> use to *identify* one another? How do you tell which soul is ill DB> enough to need 'curing'? Wouldn't that decision arise out of the DB> VCR tapes of the lives lived? What is it that could be done that DB> would constitute a cure? Mr Brown !!! you are opening the Pandora's box of "consciousness into reality", toying with the soul as some media function in the mix with a still in "thought-design-phase "HOLODECK" as a dynamic exploratory device. That is, for me, a bit of metal to toss around. For one, we would have to have some "working definitions" of agreement as to how we might use the player elements and the construction of the stage we would play them on. Some player elements: 1. Qualities of being (the goods, the bads and the uglies...plus) 2. Soul (smart communications media)? 3. Awareness/consciousness (smart gameboard ?) 4. Death and/or optional continuations/states of "being" 5. Purpose of conscious being ? I would accept the "Holodeck" as a smart abstraction of the stage function, but the rest might require some negotiation ...I think. Initially it can only be a game with players ....with some hope that a pearl might lurk in an unexpected mud bank ...accident or ??? Such an activity would be an exploration into the 2nd heaviest "CORNER" of existence (the 1st being the actual inventor of such a "CORNER" )! The more religious on this echo might get the impression we are searching out a God they have already found ! DB> Well, for one, everyone would know that there could be no secrets DB> among them, that no noble, nor despicable act could remain hidden DB> from them. Wouldn't the balance between noblity and depravity be DB> used for the diagnosis? And where the balance is lacking, what's DB> to be done? Erasure? Another option would be another form for an DB> ill soul to take... re-incarnation? or, perhaps more accurrately, DB> a re*form*ation, not limited to forms in this reality system. We would first have to conjecture a reason and a will to care into concern the items you have listed of importance. Why bother to judge, consider repair or punishment? Despicable acts are only so by transient definitions of questionable life forms. If we are to take such things serious, we might first have to stake out the why and what of it. Secrets become meaningless when we expand past their limited value ......re-incarnation also becomes a questionable waste of being unless the point of evolving can be explained as more than a poetic jig! The balance between nobility and depravity might be negotiable or non existent variables once measured from another vantage. It all becomes a relative game in a parochial sandbox ....unless nudged up a notch by some an inspired itch or two..............froma where ??? @@>---Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000)