[Mind's Eye] Re: Complex argument

We can only change ourselves, alas.

On Dec 20, 9:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was watching a program on the Mayans  and  the writings about the
> milkyway being on the horizon.
>
> What I am seeing  is the guilt complex where people know what is going on
> is wrong with the waste of resources are looking for a super natural
> solution to these problems. It seems they  are wanting to say they saw I
> coming rather than doing what they can to change it.
> Allan
>  On Dec 20, 2011 2:32 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On second thought, I was thinking of Thomas Mann when I wrote this,
> > and it has been a few decades since I read him.  It has only been a
> > decade since I read the Moore work and his ideas on soul.  Refresh my
> > memory, I am thinking you meant there is not enough evidence of soul
> > in the world, as many are not in touch with it.
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:57 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thomas Moore was an interesting guy.  Very poignant writing yet ended
> > > up following hitler in the end, and his art fell apart, having lost
> > > his soul maybe.
>
> > > On Dec 19, 1:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I could not disagree with that Molly - though something of the
> > > > "invisible hand" spooks me in all argument.  I'm as sure as Thomas
> > > > Moore that we lack soul, but want something that differentiates mad
> > > > people like Ayn Rand and reason.
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 11:31 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Morals and ethics that are entrenched in right and wrong and exclude
> > > > > or separate are human indeed, but have not yet seen the light of
> > > > > spirit. Much of religion, the "religion" mentioned in this discussion
> > > > > is of this.  The individual journey of the heart to the non dual
> > > > > experience reaps the knowing that spirit includes and is revealed
> > > > > between the opposites, uniting them.  Once this becomes the
> > individual
> > > > > view, the world of the non dual and all who share it is revealed.
> > > > > Words can only point the way and always fall short if the reader
> > > > > cannot connect the opposites with spirit.  It takes a transcendence
> > > > > that can then forever be remembered.  It makes time and space and
> > > > > opposition poignant and irrelevant.  They don't disappear, but are
> > not
> > > > > important (or more automatic to be precise).  A different ethics, one
> > > > > that is innate but forgotten, emerges.  One that is not concerned
> > with
> > > > > right and wrong as it has been unified in spirit, aspects of the same
> > > > > element.  One that unites, and sees conflict for what it is, the
> > realm
> > > > > of death (that is integral to life.)  All of this is already present
> > > > > everywhere.  It is the view that changes our experience, relationship
> > > > > and dynamic of it.
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 2:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
> > > > > > Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not
> > sure
> > > > > > the smell is sweet!  Academe seems to have entirely failed in
> > > > > > providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of
> > how
> > > > > > the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way.  I
> > > > > > broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too
> > much
> > > > > > current influence when we could do better etc.  I suspect, though,
> > > > > > this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
> > > > > > feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something
> > wrong
> > > > > > with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and
> > the
> > > > > > rest of the fables.  A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
> > > > > > years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
> > > > > > religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
> > > > > > I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one -
> > LOL -
> > > > > > no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
> > > > > > required.  The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
> > > > > > closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
> > > > > > dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they
> > claim
> > > > > > is a greater good.  "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
> > > > > > appeal and is full of moral urging.
> > > > > > It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
> > > > > > > "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to
> > technology. And
> > > > > > > I could add many names from history/economic development that
> > > > > > > discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
> > > > > > > belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an
> > alternative
> > > > > > > to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy
> > medium.
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here.  It's only one
> > example
> > > > > > > > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy.
> >  More
> > > > > > > > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what
> > kind of
> > > > > > > > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms.  One
> > form of
> > > > > > > > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep
> > divisions. Ad
> > > > > > > > hom may be allowable in that.  I'm writing a paper for a
> > conference
> > > > > > > > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally
> > malevolent
> > > > > > > > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom -
> > that
> > > > > > > > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice
> > (there
> > > > > > > > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as
> > atheists
> > > > > > > > being immoral).
> > > > > > > > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a
> > digest
> > > > > > > > might be as follows:
>
> > > > > > > > Dialogue types:
> > > > > > > > Dialogue Type   Initial Situation       Participant's Goal
> >  Goal of Dialogue
> > > > > > > > Persuasion      Conflict of Opinion     Persuade Other Party
> >  Resolve Issue
> > > > > > > > Inquiry Need to Have Proof      Verify Evidence Prove
> > Hypothesis
> > > > > > > > Discovery       Need for Explanation    Find a Hypothesis
> >   Support Hypothesis
> > > > > > > > Negotiation     Conflict of Interests   Secure Interests
> >  Settle Issue
> > > > > > > > Information     Need Information        Acquire Information
> >   Exchange Information
> > > > > > > > Deliberation    Practical Choice        Fit Goals and Actions
> >   Decide What to Do
> > > > > > > > Eristic Personal Conflict       Attack an Opponent      Reveal
> > Deep Conflict
>
> > > > > > > > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> > > > > > > > 1.an account of the principles of communication which
> > argumentative
> > > > > > > > exchange depends upon;
> > > > > > > > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which
> > argument
> > > > > > > > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate
> > and
> > > > > > > > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference
> > between
> > > > > > > > scientific discussion and negotiation);
> > > > > > > > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it
> > can be
> > > > > > > > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude)
> > is a
> > > > > > > > logical consequence of another;
> > > > > > > > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of
> > argument and
> > > > > > > > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need
> > to be
> > > > > > > > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the
> > simplest
> > > > > > > > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally
> > different
> > > > > > > > kinds of argument);
> > > > > > > > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general
> > criteria for
> > > > > > > > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> > > > > > > > definitions of positive argument schema which define good
> > patterns of
> > > > > > > > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks
> > against
> > > > > > > > the person; etc.);
> > > > > > > > 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can
> > (and
> > > > > > > > cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> > > > > > > > 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and
> > other
> > > > > > > > rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing
> > argument;
> > > > > > > > 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> > > > > > > > arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> > > > > > > > Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical
> > Argumentation,
> > > > > > > > Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> > > > > > > > What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic
> > behaviour
> > > > > > > > as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> > > > > > > > coercion to get us to play its games.  I actually believe this
> > but
> > > > > > > > want to do more than just assert the position.  I'm not
> > concerned to
> > > > > > > > dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness
> > of
> > > > > > > > "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> > > > > > > > In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take
> > part in its
> > > > > > > > fellowship.  My contention is that economics works in the same
> > way -
> > > > > > > > under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied.  The
> > driving
> > > > > > > > question is what a scientific economics might be and how this
> > might be
> > > > > > > > a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not
> > value-free but
> > > > > > > > moral.  In the context of history, religion has often been
> > concerned
> > > > > > > > with economics and particularly freedom from debt.  What I'm
> > searching
> > > > > > > > for is something that breaks religion and politics from
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -