From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 02:04:03 BST
Hi Sam, (Ian mentioned), and all,
Ok, we're making progress.
On 30 Jul 2005 at 11:55, Sam Norton wrote:
msh 7-29-05:
> And can we agree that it's fair to say that individual human beings
> may be described as Bio-Dominant, Soc-Dominant, or Int-Dominant? It
> seems clear that the character Lila, with her overriding interest in
> food, drink, sex, is B-D. Rigel, with his emphasis on social
> convention, and his fear that people like Lila pose a threat to
> society, as well as his hostility toward the Intellectual level, can
> be said to be S-D. Phaedrus is I-D, aloof, lost in his thoughts,
> finding he must often drop down outta the clouds and force himself to
> relate to others on the Bio and Soc levels. And can we agree that
> none of this means that Lila and Rigel don't have thoughts, or that
> Phaedrus never enjoys a good steak or sex?
sam 7-30-05:
Hmm. Not comfortable with this. I'd much rather talk about particular
*actions* being B-D or S-D or whatever.
<snip stuff I agree with>
msh 7-30-05:
Ok, I see your point. Let's agree that actions can be evaluated as B-
D, S-D, I-D, and we'll forget about individuals. Just so we can be
clear on how actions are to be classified, let's imagine that we are
told by trusted authorities that our planet is being invaded by inter-
galactic forces bent on destroying us. How would you classify the
following actions:
1) Huddling in a a cave with a stockpile of guns and ammo
2) Passing laws to insure that inter-galactic travel is highly
regulated
3) Seeking to verify that the the threat is real, before opting for
1, 2, or some other course of possibly exacerbating action.
If we can agree that 1 is B-D, 2 is S-D, and 3 is I-D, then I think
we can proceed.
> Finally, I think there is a lot of confusion about the word
> "intellectual," as can be seen by the dozens of ant-intellectual
> posts that have occurred here in just the last several days. These
> anti-intellectual posts seem, at times, to regard intellectuals as,
> what, people with college degrees, university professors, people who
> read a lot of difficult books? Or just people with whom the
> intellectual-basher disagrees? There doesn't seem to be any clear
> definition, yet the intellectual bashing that goes on here does have
> a common underlying theme: the objectionable intellectual is the one
> who disagrees with the clearly identifiable political agenda
> personified by GWB in the US, and to a somewhat lesser extent, by
> Blair in the UK.
Did you really expect me to agree with this? My understanding of intellect
has been on display quite a lot recently; I suspect it has a lot in common
with your notion of FRH (when are we going to return to that thread by the
way?); and I think the equation of the intellectual level with one or other
political perspective is daft.
<snip stuff I agree with>
msh 7-30-05:
Relax. I was taking a pop at the faux philosopher. Ok, let's keep
the FRH in mind.
>
> So, I think the discussion will benefit if we can come to some
> agreement about what is meant by the word "intellectual." Used as a
> noun, I see any I-D individual as an "intellectual," but this does
> not preclude a B-D or S-D from having higher quality "intellectual"
> thoughts. Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have
> disagreements about what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but,
> among intellectuals, there is a certain procedure for working this
> out for themselves: discussion and arguments, based on evidence,
> derived from experience. B-D and S-D individuals can certainly
> participate in such discussions, but their participation will be
> fruitful only if they are willing to put their B-D S-D inclinations
> on the back-burner, and accept the established protocols of
> intellectual exchange. If they can't, or won't, then the discussion
> will almost certainly degenerate to social-level finger-wagging
> (Rigel) or exasperated insults (Lila).
sam 7-30-05:
I think you need to read the link which Ian posted, re Pons and
Fleishchmann, and also the link I gave to Paul with an article from the
Guardian.
msh 7-30-05:
I don't see the connection.
I read both, and commented on the Guardian article in another post.
As for the "defense" of P&F, I think you and Ian are way to easily
impressed by a "slide-show" lecture presented as if it were
documented scientific analysis. The only "slide" with potentially
verifiable content was the table reporting the results of other
scientists who claim to have conducted P&F type experiments measuring
energy output greater than input. But, since no contact information
is provided, not even an email address or web link, there is no way
to confirm the nature of the experiments and what, if anything, they
prove.
Moreover, as I said in another post, if P&F were sincere in conveying
their discovery to the scientific community they would have either
provided ALL documentation necessary to replicate results or, at
least, gotten their "hot" beaker running and opened their doors to
third party evaluation. None of this happened. This fact, along
with the fact that, sixteen years later, neither P&F or anyone else
is verifibly producing so-called cold-fusion reactions seems, to me,
pretty convincing evidence that, so far, the notion is untenable.
sam 7-30-05:
I would suggest a simpler description of the intellectual level:
participation in the intellectual level is possible in so far as the
participant can accept the truth "I might be wrong" (and that is an
index of emotional maturity). There is then the possibility of a
genuine intellectual exchange. As soon as someone tries to shut down
a dialogue by appeal to prejudice then we have a reassertion of
(normally) S-D behaviour, wouldn't you agree?
msh 7-30-05:
I don't see how anything in my protocol of intellectual discussion
can be said to "shut down a dialogue by appeal to prejudice."
I'm also not sure why emotional maturity should be a factor in
arriving at truth, (is this one of those Eudaemonic things?), but I,
for one, have no problem accepting the possibility that I might be
wrong. I've been proved wrong so many times I have a big "W" branded
on my ass. The thing is, you need to prove me wrong, using the
intellectual protocol suggested above. Here's where I laid out the
protocol:
Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have disagreements about
what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but, among intellectuals,
there is a certain procedure for working this out for themselves:
discussion and arguments, based on evidence, derived from experience.
Can you accept this protocol? If so, we can proceed.
Best
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
I'm just trying to make a smudge on the collective unconscious.
--David Letterman
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 08:15:47 BST