From: Reilly Jones (70544.1227@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Mon Sep 30 1996 - 22:01:59 MDT
Sarah Marr wrote 9/29/96: <This is getting a little too personal for my liking,
but I must say I found this particular post far more pleasant than the last one:
thanks, Reilly.>
Your welcome. Mutual reciprocity seems to work just fine.
SM: <Your formation of this opinion started from the premise that I thought
contradictory things could happen in the same place at the same time. I don't.
So that ain't my worldview. Promise.>
OK.
SM: <My value judgements decide what I tolerate and what I do not tolerate.>
And you don't want to "try and rationalize my system of morality and ethics at
this point." OK.
SM: <I'd rather not be destroyed _and_ honour diversity. Mind you, sometimes
that's a difficult fight!>
In this fight, does desiring being destroyed ever prevail over honoring
diversity? Even once?
SM: <When Brown first observed pollen motion there was no theory at all behind
it.... You don't need a theory to observe, and you don't need a theory to
record your observations.>
How did Brown recognize pollen without a theory? Or recognize motion without a
theory? If you want to pursue this line after you take a gander at the source I
provided, I'd be happy to. But I'm not going to plunge into interminable
details for now.
My, my, we're getting along like proper ladies and gentlemen all of sudden. <g>
Dennis Kaffenberger wrote 9/29/96: <Truth is relative and it is decided by a
popularity contests.>
Ugh... Those with the best weapons and the will to use them, end up winning
these kind of popularity contests. No thank you. I will assume that nothing
you have to say is true, since I don't give a rip about popularity contests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology:
70544.1227@compuserve.com | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:46 MST