those who speak

bnhpct · November 14, 2001, 1:14am

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 17:14 PST]

The expression "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know" would be paradoxical in the way Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650) said if it referred to all speaking whatsoever, or if it referred to speaking about the particular problem that it is speaking about. But it is speaking about something else, which (it is thereby asserted) cannot be communicated with words.

Bruce Gregory's quotation of this in a different context was odd, deeply ironic, and I think probably tongue in cheek.

Bruce Nevin

Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650)--

···

At 04:49 PM 11/13/2001 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

Me:

> No. It simply depends on the fact that someone spoke the words "Those who
> know do not speak. Those who speak do not know." It's like the man who
> says "All men are liars". Do you see the paradox now?

Bill Williams:

> The two assertions are not alike. So the comparison is not instructive.

OK. That looks like a QED to me. I give.

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 1:50am

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1750)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 17:14 PST) --

The expression "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know"
would be paradoxical in the way Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650) said if it
referred to all speaking whatsoever, or if it referred to speaking about
the particular problem that it is speaking about. But it is speaking about
something else, which (it is thereby asserted) cannot be communicated with
words.

I presume that one think you think it was _not_ speaking about is this
speech of yours because, if it were, it would mean that you (like me,
the person who said "Those who speak do not know" and everyone else who
speaks) don't know what you are talking about.

Best regards

Alice

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

Bill_Powers1 · November 14, 2001, 1:50am

[From Bill Powers (2001.11.13.1843 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 17:14 PST)

Bruce Gregory's quotation of this in a different context was odd, deeply
ironic, and I think probably tongue in cheek.

Sometimes I wonder if BG's agenda isn't "No matter what you say, there's
something wrong with it." But there's probably something wrong with that idea.

I'm curious about Bill W.'s comments on "non-absolute" logic. I find logic
very useful, and wouldn't like to give it up. Of course logic is not the
highest level in the hierarchy I dreamed up, so maybe you're referring to
something like that, Bill?

Best,

Bill P.

bnhpct · November 14, 2001, 3:17am

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 19:17 PST)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1750)--

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 17:14 PST) --

> The expression "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know"
> would be paradoxical in the way Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650) said if it
> referred to all speaking whatsoever, or if it referred to speaking about
> the particular problem that it is speaking about. But it is speaking about
> something else, which (it is thereby asserted) cannot be communicated with
> words.

I presume that one think you think it was _not_ speaking about is this
speech of yours because, if it were, it would mean that you (like me,
the person who said "Those who speak do not know" and everyone else who
speaks) don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, of course. But you said that.

The origin of the quotation is Lao Tsu speaking of the difficulty of defining the Dao (Tao), the true nature of things. Speaking of that difficulty is not an instance of speech subject to this claim that those who speak do not know.

Speaking of the Dao != Speaking of the difficulty of speaking of the Dao

Nor, assuming Lao Tsu's statement to be true, does it follow that he did not know the Dao, nor that anyone else who speaks of this difficulty does not know the Dao.

Similar things have been said by various people -- Buddhists, Ludwig Wittgenstein, William Blake. Something like this has been said on CSGnet from time to time about "boss reality" vs. the universe of perceptions.

Here is where Bruce Gregory quoted this line:

>Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146)--
>
>[Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0815)]
>
>Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to
>those whose only agenda is PCT.
>
>Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Rick was commenting on Mary Powers (2001.11.11):

> Something odd here. Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written,
>"I cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
> prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".
>
>And I said "Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell".
>
>At which point Kenny said, "I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's
>behavior in their nutshells for a while..." and followed that in a later
>post with a sign-off to Bill, "Best to you and Mrs. Nutshell". Both remarks
>suggesting that he was rather pissed off. But why at me rather than Dag?

I said that Bruce's quoting of this seemed to me tongue in cheek, and (with irony) that it was odd and deeply ironic. It appeared to me that he was poking gentle fun at you, Rick, for assuming the posture of a wise sage issuing gnomic comments that only the initiated can fully understand. I thought it was humorous.

But spelling out the point of a joke never makes it funny. Kind of like, those who know, chuckle, and those who don't chuckle don't know.

Maybe the most comical thing about us humans is that we engage in so much huffing and puffing about something so trivial as beliefs and disbeliefs, even when we profess ourselves scientists. C'mon! A basic tenet of science (as of buddhism, daoism, etc.) is that beliefs are temporary scaffolding. Their use is to be taken very seriously, but the beliefs themselves not at all.

Bruce Nevin

···

At 05:50 PM 11/13/2001 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 4:54am

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.2050)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 19:17 PST)--

Here is where Bruce Gregory quoted this line:

Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146)--

[Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0815)]

Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to
those whose only agenda is PCT.

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

It appeared to me that he was poking gentle fun at you, Rick,
for assuming the posture of a wise sage issuing gnomic comments
that only the initiated can fully understand.

I can see that it could sound like this was what I was doing. So I stand
properly poked. Frankly, I deserve to be poked for what I was really
doing, so justice (with God using Bruce Gregory as his instrument) has
been served.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 2:39pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.0937)]

[From Bill Powers (2001.11.13.1843 MST)]

Sometimes I wonder if BG's agenda isn't "No matter what you say, there's
something wrong with it." But there's probably something wrong with that idea.

Thanks. This is very helpful.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 14, 2001, 3:12pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.14 0915 EST)]

Yeah, Bruce! The whole thing about Rick in a nutshell.

I am only joking and promise to stop the plagiarizing of the Mary Powers-ism
very soon, if not now. But I think you have hit on what happens when any of
us (not just Rick) sagely judges others as if we know things about them that
are probably unknowable without much testing or two-way dialogue. Of all
people, PCTers should understand how difficult and speculative it is to form
opinions or make accusations about others based upon scant evidence and mere
observation

So when someone accuses another person of:
-having an agenda other than PCT
-not being sufficiently skeptical of Bible scriptures
-discussing PCT in terms of religion, but not the scriptures in terms of PCT
-taking a cheap shot
-hitting below the belt (to include myself),
we can assume that the chances of resistance and escalation of rhetoric are
likely to follow. Why? Because it disturbs some reference perception(s) we
like to hold about ourself. A reference I believe is higher than our beliefs
or systems concepts about things.

As an intended constructive suggestion, you as President could implore CSGNet
participants to stay away from personally evaluating people based upon your
own impressions. Contest what people say and the ideas they posit without
suggesting that there is something wrong with them as people. BTW, I think
you do serve as a good example of not putting people down even while
disagreeing with the positions they take or the things they do.

Well said, although beliefs are not trivial to those holding them. But,
those one person holds dearly should not be something someone else needs to
huff and puff about. In the context of PCT, both scientists and theists,
hold to certain beliefs and system concepts worth defending, even if
defending them hurts other people or if it kills themselves.

Why? Well, my proposed Twelfth Level gives a possible answer that I think is
missing in HPTC. Attacking a persons beliefs or systemic concepts or what is
right or wrong for them, does in fact disturb a real, measurable, testable
variable of self-respect, worth or value of that person and their existence.
And, scientist and theist alike become highly animated when that perception
of themselves as a human is being is disturbed by what they perceive others
perceive about them. It robs from their unique human spirit and dignity.

Unlike Bryan T., I see no reason to not explore on this net what people with
beliefs about science or religion (including atheism) tend to be like and do
so we can understand their behavior in terms of PCT. Where we go amuck seems
to be when we personalize it and accuse people of having agendas that are
right or wrong, proper or improper. Mike Acree, the anarchist. Kenny the
religious one. Williams the economic guru. Bruce Abbott, the reinforcement
guy. Bruce Gregory, the one who always likes to show you are wrong guy.

I know it is hard to separate the general beliefs and systems concepts from
those of a particular individual. But, how about when we feel a need to
personalize it, to approach the person privately instead of in a general
forum. Then, we can find out if our perceptions are really the same (one on
one) and whether we choose to engage in dialogue or let us each one be
ourselves in peace. When two or more seem to find some common view, perhaps
that can be thrown out as a general idea on the CSGNet?

Just my two cents (sense) on elevating the discussions.

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 3:34pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1034)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.14 0915 EST)

As an intended constructive suggestion, you [Bruce N.] as President could
implore CSGNet
participants to stay away from personally evaluating people based upon your
own impressions. Contest what people say and the ideas they posit without
suggesting that there is something wrong with them as people. BTW, I think
you do serve as a good example of not putting people down even while
disagreeing with the positions they take or the things they do.

It's amazing how sensible you become after I read the posts of others.

Why? Well, my proposed Twelfth Level gives a possible answer that I think is

missing in HPTC. Attacking a persons beliefs or systemic concepts or what is
right or wrong for them, does in fact disturb a real, measurable, testable
variable of self-respect, worth or value of that person and their existence.
And, scientist and theist alike become highly animated when that perception
of themselves as a human is being is disturbed by what they perceive others
perceive about them. It robs from their unique human spirit and dignity.

One alternative to a twelfth level is that self-respect is another name for
what Bill calls intrinsic variables. In other words, we adopt beliefs in
order to survive. This survival is not simply individual survival; it
involves the fact that as social animals we are threatened when we perceive
ourselves as separated from the group and are sometimes willing to
sacrifice our survival for what we perceive to be the group's survival. (I
know this gives some neo-Darwinians fits, but so do a lot of things.)

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 4:42pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.14.0840)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.13 19:17 PST) --

It appeared to me that he was poking gentle fun at you, Rick,
for assuming the posture of a wise sage issuing gnomic comments
that only the initiated can fully understand. I thought it was humorous.

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.14 0915 EST) --

Yeah, Bruce! The whole thing about Rick in a nutshell.

But I think you have hit on what happens when any of us (not just Rick)
sagely judges others as if we know things about them that are probably
unknowable without much testing or two-way dialogue.

Interesting. You are _praising_ Bruce Nevin for doing exactly what you _condemn_
others for doing. Bruce is judging others (me in this case) as if he knew things
about them (me) that (according to you) are probably unknowable. In fact,
Bruce's judgment about me was wrong; I was _not_ assuming the posture of a wise
sage. I could see how he might have thought that this is what I was doing, so I
understood his explanation of Bruce Gregory's nonsensical non-sequiter. But
Bruce N.'s judgment of what I was doing was incorrect. It would have been
possible to determine what I was doing (using some form of the test) but no one
did that and so no one knows what I was actually doing.

BTW, I think you [Bruce Nevin] do serve as a good example of not putting
people down even while disagreeing with the positions they take or the things
they do.

Bruce is certainly a good example. But since he does exactly what you condemn
others (like me) for doing , can I assume that these others are good examples
too?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 4:54pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1154)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.0840)

In fact,
Bruce's judgment about me was wrong; I was _not_ assuming the posture of a
wise
sage. I could see how he might have thought that this is what I was doing,
so I
understood his explanation of Bruce Gregory's nonsensical non-sequiter. But
Bruce N.'s judgment of what I was doing was incorrect. It would have been
possible to determine what I was doing (using some form of the test) but
no one
did that and so no one knows what I was actually doing.

You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 5:28pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.14.0930)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1154)

You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Good guess. But not correct. I think it would be instructive, however, if you
could tell us how you carried out the test.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 5:46pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1247)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.0930)

Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1154)

> You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Good guess. But not correct. I think it would be instructive, however, if you
could tell us how you carried out the test.

It was not a guess. I simply described what you did. Let me refresh your
memory.

Mary said:

> Something odd here. Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written,
> "I cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
> prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".

You said:

> Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to
> those whose only agenda is PCT.

Dag's statement is only ironic if he is guilty of what he accuses Kenny of.
This does not require a deep understanding of PCT, but only a nodding
familiarity with the English language. I do not attempt to fathom your motives.

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 6:35pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1030)]

Bruce Gregory:

You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Me:

Good guess. But not correct. I think it would be instructive, however, if you
could tell us how you carried out the test.

Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1247) --

It was not a guess. I simply described what you did.

Then you didn't use the test. You are simply describing the way my behavior
appears to you. You are looking at my behavior through causal theory glasses,
assuming that you can tell what I am _doing_ (controlling) by simply looking at
what I am doing. The whole point of PCT (and of several of my computer demos) is
to show that this is a huge mistake; you _can't_ tell what people are doing (what
perceptions they are controlling) by simply looking at what they are doing (their
actions and the results of those actions). You have to test for the controlled
variable.

Your description of my behavior _implies_ that I was controlling for the
perception of "insulting Dag". I said "good guess" because it is possible that I
was controlling for that perception. But you can't know what I was controlling for
unless you conduct the test, which at its simplest involves applying disturbances
to hypothetical controlled variables and watching to see if the agent (me, in
this case) protects these variables from disturbance.

Mary said:

> Something odd here. Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written,
> "I cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
> prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".

You said:

> Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to
> those whose only agenda is PCT.

Dag's statement is only ironic if he is guilty of what he accuses Kenny of.

This is an accurate _description_ of the meaning of my statement. It doesn't
follow, however, that my intent was to insult Dag. The intent could have been to
make a point about the selective influence of agendas, or to criticize Mary's
judgment or whatever. But, whatever my intent (it was actually to point to the
selective influence of agendas) I probably shouldn't have made the comment at all
since I should have known that it could be seen as an insult.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 7:06pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1406)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1030)

Then you didn't use the test. You are simply describing the way my behavior
appears to you. You are looking at my behavior through causal theory glasses,
assuming that you can tell what I am _doing_ (controlling) by simply
looking at
what I am doing.

Why is it not obvious to you that you are doing _exactly_ what you are
accusing me of doing? Are really that blind? Or are you controlling some
other perception at higher gain?

The whole point of PCT (and of several of my computer demos) is
to show that this is a huge mistake; you _can't_ tell what people are
doing (what
perceptions they are controlling) by simply looking at what they are doing
(their
actions and the results of those actions). You have to test for the controlled
variable.

Then why didn't _you _ do it? Really, Rick, you are really a piece of work.

Your description of my behavior _implies_ that I was controlling for the
perception of "insulting Dag".

See, you did it again. You have no idea what I was controlling for. Why not
admit it. Is it really that hard? You didn't perform the test, so you are
just guessing.

I said "good guess" because it is possible that I
was controlling for that perception. But you can't know what I was
controlling for
unless you conduct the test, which at its simplest involves applying
disturbances
to hypothetical controlled variables and watching to see if the agent (me, in
this case) protects these variables from disturbance.

Again, since you are the expert, why don't you ever follow your own advice?
I don't get it.

This is an accurate _description_ of the meaning of my statement. It doesn't
follow, however, that my intent was to insult Dag.

Of course not. You often insult people without intending to. Or at least
you deny that that was your intention. Without doing the test I can't be
sure whether the insults are intentional or unintentional.

The intent could have been to
make a point about the selective influence of agendas, or to criticize Mary's
judgment or whatever. But, whatever my intent (it was actually to point
to the
selective influence of agendas) I probably shouldn't have made the comment
at all
since I should have known that it could be seen as an insult.

I was going to say f____ you, but I didn't, because I thought you might
take it as an insult.

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 9:35pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1330)]

Me:

Then you didn't use the test. You are simply describing the way my behavior
appears to you. You are looking at my behavior through causal theory glasses,
assuming that you can tell what I am _doing_ (controlling) by simply
looking at what I am doing.

Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1406) --

Why is it not obvious to you that you are doing _exactly_ what you are
accusing me of doing?

Because I don't think we were doing exactly the same thing. You said that you had
done the test and determined that I had intended to insult Dag. I said that you
had not done the test. I don't know (and didn't say) whether you intended to do
the test or not. But based on your description of what you did, I concluded that
you did not do the test (whether you intended to do it or not).

So we did not do _exactly_ the same thing. You said that I intended to produce a
particular result (insulting Dag) without having tested to see if that was an
intended result. I made a statement about a particular result you _didn't_ produce
(the test) without having tested to see if that was an intended result because I
didn't care whether it was or not.

Me:

You have to test for the controlled variable.

Ye:

Then why didn't _you _ do it?

Because I was not trying to determine whether or not your _intent_ was to conduct
the test. I was just judging, based on your observed behavior (what you said you
had done to determine my intention), whether you had performed the actions
involved in the test. You have to test for the controlled variable only if you
want to know what result a person intends to produce. You do have to test for the
controlled variable if you want to know whether I actually intended to insult Dag.

But I agreed with you description of my behavior. I was alluding to the fact that
Dag is guilty of what he accuses Kenny of. I just disagreed with your conclusion
about my intent. I have no idea whether or not you intended to perform the test
and I didn't meant to imply that you did or did not intend to perform the test;.
All I meant to say was that it looks to me like you did not perform the test
(whether you intended to or not).

Me:

Your description of my behavior _implies_ that I was controlling for the
perception of "insulting Dag".

Ye:

See, you did it again.

Sorry. I think you misunderstand. I didn't mean that you _intended_ to imply that
I was controlling for "insulting Dag". I just mean that one could derive that
implication from your description of my behavior.

You have no idea what I was controlling for. Why not admit it. Is it really that

hard?

Not hard at all. I have no idea what you were controlling for. All I know is that
you described nothing about you behavior that looks like the steps involved in
testing for controlled variables. So all I conclude is that you did not perform
the test, whether you intended to or not.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 9:49pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1649)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1330)

So we did not do _exactly_ the same thing. You said that I intended to
produce a
particular result (insulting Dag) without having tested to see if that was an
intended result.

I'm sorry, but I can't find this statement in any of my posts. Could you
tell me exactly where you found it? Thanks.

Richard_Marken2 · November 14, 2001, 10:13pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1415)]

Me:

So we did not do _exactly_ the same thing. You said that I intended to
produce a particular result (insulting Dag) without having tested to see
if that was an intended result.

Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1649) --

I'm sorry, but I can't find this statement in any of my posts. Could you
tell me exactly where you found it? Thanks.

You said:

You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Since you added "I used the test" I assumed that you were saying you had
determined that I produced that result (insulting Dag) intentionally. Why say
that you used the test unless you were testing to determine whether a result was
controlled (intended)? If you weren't saying that I intended to insult Dag then
why say you "used the test" (when you didn't).

Bryan Thalhamer wrote:

Dear group (Bruce G. in particular),

Like Bruce N. Said. Stop it. Move on.

I think we are moving on to basic issues in PCT (like distinguishing intended
from unintended results). But I think the recent discussions have been reasonably
cordial and even educational. I think it will work itself out just fine.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bruce_Gregory · November 14, 2001, 10:32pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1114.1732)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.1415)

You said:

> You were insulting Dag Forssell. (I used the test.)

Since you added "I used the test" I assumed that you were saying you had
determined that I produced that result (insulting Dag) intentionally. Why say
that you used the test unless you were testing to determine whether a
result was
controlled (intended)? If you weren't saying that I intended to insult Dag
then
why say you "used the test" (when you didn't).

Now I see where the misunderstanding arose. My reference to the test was
ambiguous at best; misleading at worst. Thanks.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 16, 2001, 2:29am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.15.2100 EST)]

<It's amazing how sensible you become after I read the posts of others.>

Some things I guess are relative; but that doesn't mean there are no
absolutes.

I think this was sort of what that student of Spence Saunders? mentioned. I
was hoping to get the student participating. I did not see anything, or did
I miss something when I was away for two weeks?

I buy the intrinsic variable part in that I perceive it is just part of our
human spirit (call it humaness if that term human *spirit* drives people up a
tree thinking I mean something metaphysical) that seems to dwell within
ourselves somewhere, even from birth, and then appears to various people and
at various levels of gain. Somewhat like the urge or instinct to build a
nest occurs to a bird at certain times and under certain conditions.

But, I have a difficult time seeing self-respect as something akin to
survival. I suppose you could say when you perceive no (or negative)
self-worth, it could produce suicidal behavior as your life looses meaning?
Interesting.

I envision most of the variables in a twelfth level as various types of human
longings, things that bring greater degrees of fulfillment. A longing for
knowledge, understanding, wisdom and even love. But not something akin to
the necessity of food, water, air which are more what I remember Bill
suggesting in B:CP which literally threaten life itself.

<(I know this gives some neo-Darwinians fits, but so do a lot of things.)>

Goes without saying, Darwinians of any kind don't impress or concern me much.
No fits here. Ha!

Bill_Williams_UMKC · November 16, 2001, 5:09am

[From Bill Williams 15 November 2001 11:00 CST]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.15.2100 EST)]

Some things I guess are relative; but that doesn't mean there are no
absolutes.

Two years ago in Boston you made a statement which I initially understood
to assert that secular people had no values. When I asked if this was what
you meant you explained, if a remember correctly, that what you meant was
that secularists didn't have absolute values. I assumed at the time that
you were implicitly asserting that secularists had relative as opposed to
absolute values. But, I didn't feel it the time or place to take up what
was your time on stage to argue that there are alternatives other than
absolute or relative constructions of experience, value, life and what
have you. The instrumental conception of value, logic and experience
advocated by John Dewey provides a method for considering the fundamental
questions of existence in terms which a number of inquirers have noted
bears a close resemblence to control theory. ( Before I go any further
I want to say that when Jim STurgeon recently asked me-- actually I
think he intended it as an assertion framed as question whether or not
I thought Dewey's _Human Nature and Conduct_ was still an adaquate text
my answer was no. ) But, there is a connection between an instrumental
conception of value and experience and control theory. Slack in the
Psych Rev 1957 I think draws a connection between Dewey's treatment of
the Reflex ARc and control theory. So does George Richardson in his
Feedback Theory in Social Science. With prolonging this further, I'd
like to point out that I aggree with Ken that relativism as a guide to
behavior has some grave difficulties. But, the choice is not limited
between absolutism and relativism, there are other, and I think better
conceptions.

Goes without saying, Darwinians of any kind don't impress or concern me much.

Evidently, however, they concern you sufficiently to assert that "they don't
impress or concern me much." For many of us Darwin's work represents a
crucial turning point in man's understanding of the world around him. I'm
not interested myself in aping Sinclair Lewis, or Huxley in using Darwin as a
text to assult religion. I am, however, concerned when religious beliefs are
used to impead the teaching in public schools of whaat I regard as modern
biology. Your comment on Darwin suggests the possiblity that we might differ
in regard to this issue. Without opening a new battle in the warfare between
science and religion would you care to extend your comment?

best
Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/