The Hermit wrote:
>Attempting a quick reply, I got caught up towards the end. Now split.
I understand completely. That's why I'm just going to knock off a few replies to the beginning parts and then tackle the meat of your post tomorrow after I'm better rested. (Although we're much more in agreement further down the post than this section might reflect.)
>A forum debate (which as I noted in my reply to KMO is how I tend to think
>of CoV) works differently. Look it up. They are fun. They alsoput more
>emphasis on playing than on winning. OTOH, read my reply to KMO - it says
>why I believe that rational people are "loosing" in the real world. And
that
>is a very scary thought.
Yes, I understand your point. (But you're not going to like mine in response, I suspect.) You wrote to KMO:
>While reason (and her sister, science) has provided the bulk of the
>population of first world countries with more benefits than anyone could
>have imagined 100 years ago, it seems to me that reason and science have
not
>had worse reputations since the dark ages. I don't know why this should be
>other than the ongoing assaults of religious figures on reason and the lack
>of interest in defending reason from "meaningless" attacks by the few
people
>who might be competent to do so.
The main problem I have with statements like these is that they remind me a great deal of a nerdy-looking geek-boy crying, "I'm so smart, I don't understand why the girls aren't attracted to me!"
Only in cases like this, the nerd-boy goes on to decide--somewhere in his spare time between going to Star Trek conventions or playing D&D--that it obviously _must be_ a conspiracy of the "beautiful people" to keep smart folks like him from getting dates. And so he devotes himself to bringing down all the popular kids, rather than spend his time trying to make himself more appealing to the opposite sex.
(Understand the analogy here? Or is it too irrational? ;-)
>> SnowLeopard wasn't the only one I was reeling out rope to, my debating
>> friend.
>>
>Still sounds "uncaring". Now are you hinting that you are a modern
Claudius,
>"one may smile, and smile, and be a villain yet". You are to devious in
your
>speech, my conversational aquaintance.
Oh, will you stop flattering me! You make me blush!
>When you "play the PhD" do you play to the players? Or to the audience?
Is there a difference?
I don't believe the "lurkers" really exist, despite the fact that I recently encountered evidence to the contrary. (Still watching silently from the wings, Laura?) But until they make themselves heard, I'll put them in the same category as the IPU and the risen Jesus.
The players are the only audience worth playing with...er...I mean, to.
>If I am wrong, I beg your pardon. I was under the impression that you
>recommended "Caring" above "Truth".
You're pardoned. "Take up your bed and walk!"
I hope you understand now that I do not think that the two are in opposition at all. Simply that holding ones position on the "Truth" axis without regard where one happen to also be standing on the "Caring" axis seems foolhardy. Careful footwork is required in such a delicate dance.
>>(I'm assuming Belief is in front, since
>> that is the standard form for such graphs.)
>
>Bad assumption. It is a standard 45degree isometric projection with proof
in
>Front.
Hmmm. Okay. I'm used to doing it from left-to-right back-to-front, but in drafting it goes the other way on isometric drawings, so I can see where you're coming from here.
>I was suggesting that you have 3 independant variables and that your
>position in meme-space may be defined by combining the axiz. This is in
>opposition to your earlier either-or suggestions. I was saying that you
were
>offering a false-choice and suggesting a different way of looking at the
>situation. I do not see Truth/Lies as necesarily being opposed (or related
>in any way) to Faith/Proof.
Did you look at the graph Eric pulled out of the archive? I think you'd find those discussions (and their resultent graphs) quite informative and not just a little tinged with deja vu. You see, this is familiar territory for some here.
>Err, I recall you as saying that reason was overrated... and me thinking
>that you had gone nuts. I did not notice you contradict that position, and
>have been responding to it.
>From a post on 3/12/99 replying to "Snipping and Sniping":
>>>
>Perhaps I can shed a bit more light on my own shadowy motivations
>by making this statement:
>
>"I believe that reason is as necessary to happiness as air is to life, but
>will draw my sword unforgivingly against any and all Breatheairians."
<<<
Is that clearer?
>As it is, the Wordsmyth English Dictionary gives noëtic, adjective, of or
>pertaining to the intellect; understood only by the mind or through the
>reasoning process
>And the WWWebster as adjective: of, relating to, or based on the intellect
>Etymology: Greek noEtikos intellectual, from noein to think, from nous mind
>
>I was trying to say that if you took away reason, you had taken away the
>meaning of noëtic - which made no sense at all. Still doesn't.
>
>/me offers Prof Tim an angry dolphin (= cross porpoise = cross purpose)?
Quite. But, all Greek aside, I think you understood what I was talking about in the last post, didn't you? Good. At least we have a basis for communication then.
>Mileage may vary. I tend to think myself a god while stoned. And on those
>trips where I ran video-recorders during them, I appear not to have acted
>more stupidly than I normally am (i.e. while not stoned). Try LSD,
>mescaline, ayahuasca, DMT and related entheogenic tryptamines, ergot,
>psilocybe or psilocyn. Other hallucinogenic, psychedelic, or psychogenic
>substances may have similar effects. I recommend that you visit Holland or
>some other enlightened country where this is not considered illegal. The
>American government regards all such experiments as evil.
Been there, done all of the above save one. (And expect I could remedy that this summer if I so choose.) In fact, my reference to "noëtic experience" was related to a discussion of the effects of DMT.
You yourself may be interested in checking out the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies ( www.maps.org ) one of the only groups in the U.S. currently authorized to do clinical trials with DMT, psilocybin, and MDMA. There's an interesting article in the last issue of their bulletin by Rick Strassman, M.D., from his forthcoming book about the DMT tests he conducted--with full FDA approval--at the University of New Mexico in 1990 and 91. (0.4 mg/kg body weight administered intravenously on over 100 instances to some 56 volunteers.) He notes, "the religious/spiritual nature of the experience" and "the 'inhabited' nature of the DMT realms" as well as their parallels to the, "so-called 'near-death experience,' whose relevance to actual death is hotly debated." (I haven't checked lately to see if the same articles are up on their website yet, however.)
But more replies to your post in the morning. For now, I sleep.
-Prof. Tim