JayB Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 I don't feel I'm adequate to do justice in responding fully or expanding on your posts but I gotta say that the strength of your logical consistency is almost frightening. But here's where the problem lies. It would be simpler if we were logic machines. If solutions were based solely and objectively on facts then more problems would be resolved. Perhaps value judgments are more important than facts alone in evaluating a problem, at least with social problems. Even though value judgments can be examined in isolation, to make more sense it seems they have to viewed in their totality (or in some framework) since value judgments figure into a person's worldview. Thus, my current obsession with sanity. It is subjective in a sense despite the DSM IV. And more importantly, as pathology can the individual be held ultimately responsible? So there's that--sanity from society's POV and then there's sanity from the individual POV. There's also some philosophical crossover with the Death with Dignity issue. Does a higher standard of living or life longevity mean a higher sanity? Interestingly enough, I think that the fact that we aren't and will never be calculating machines, and that we live in a world of vastly different and conflicting value judgments is what makes the role of logic and reason in certain aspects of public life so critical. Logic, reason, and evidence provide a means by which people who have vastly different religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives can nonetheless agree on the fact that, say, an elephant is larger than a mouse, or upon the elementary composition of water. Absent logic and reason, you are left with force and compulsion as the prime arbiters of disputes about the nature of reality. It's not as though you can't acknowledge the diversity of values, philosophies, perspectives, impulses, etc that drive human behavior and simultaneously insist on a set of rational limits on the scope of behavior that all of the above justify. My own feeling is that the point at which your actions have a direct impact on another person is the point at which the notion that your own value judgments are a sufficient justification for a particular action reaches its end. Beyond this point, you've got to find a common framework to justify your actions. The more serious your impact is on another person, or the more people it affects - the more important a common framework becomes, and the less likely it is that justifications that aren't based in fact or logic will be acceptable or defensible. The point at which people who believe that HIV infection doesn't cause AIDS, or that vaccines cause autism translate their beliefs into actions are directly harmful to others is the point at which they cross this boundary. Ditto for people who believe in witches, demonic possession, snake-oil, The Rapture, etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 Some time ago I read a book about the use of L Dopa to successfully treat catatonia induced by encephalitis (Sachs?). What struck me was the lack of correlation between physiological damage and quality of recovery and function, which seemed to depend more on 19th century terms like 'strength of will' and the 'force of character'. The author wrote extensively and sympathetically about the unique nature of each individual's condition, and how much it informs the experience of those who do not share the same perspective. Thankfully, we are primarily value based creatures with unique, unpredictable natures, rather than members of a sophisticated insect colony. Or perhaps we are the latter and fail to realize or refuse to accept it, and are therefore all delusional? We could never be entirely logical animals, because our existence is neither likely nor logical. It is meaningless until we give it meaning, and even then that meaning is entirely subjective and dependent on observers who never entirely agree; a situation which, by its very nature, is absurd. Thankfully. Having said all of that, I suspect that you'll be less than likely to address a stranger that walks into your house, takes a shit on your kitchen counter, and attempts to burn your house down with nothing more than whimsical ruminations on his unique and unpredictable nature.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Your logic is seamless. Your stereotype of the mentally ill is as borrowed and 2 dimensional as your cardboard cutout view of humanity in general. Fortunately for the rest of us, you're all talk and no action. Edited January 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Your logic is seamless. Your stereotype of the mentally ill is as borrowed and 2 dimensional as your cardboard cutout view of humanity in general. Fortunately for the rest of us, you're all talk and no action. Who said anything about the mentally ill? I was just contemplating the most likely fate of a hapless census worker who made the mistake of making eye-contact at the door, and shortly thereafter found himself in the conversational equivalent of "The Rubs Itself with Lotion Pit" in the "Silence of the Lambs." "Salvation-by-Organic-Hobby-Garden! Naval Mastermind and Chief-Technical-Officer! Dauntless Fluoro-Crusader and Hope-for-the-Future-Personified! Oh Jesus - now he's locked the door and he's reaching for the ice-climbing photo album!!!!!! Must. Escape. Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh......" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Escape...if you can, avid consumer of my bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why don't you two get a room, where you can continue to stalk each other in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Isn't focussing on this deluded victim of the desease itself without commenting on the bible thumpers who preach abstinence and burn condoms in Africa, somewhat odd? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why don't you two get a room, where you can continue to stalk each other in private. By observing the stalking, you've become part of it. Room for 3, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Interestingly enough, I think that the fact that we aren't and will never be calculating machines, and that we live in a world of vastly different and conflicting value judgments is what makes the role of logic and reason in certain aspects of public life so critical. Logic, reason, and evidence provide a means by which people who have vastly different religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives can nonetheless agree on the fact that, say, an elephant is larger than a mouse, or upon the elementary composition of water. Absent logic and reason, you are left with force and compulsion as the prime arbiters of disputes about the nature of reality. It's not as though you can't acknowledge the diversity of values, philosophies, perspectives, impulses, etc that drive human behavior and simultaneously insist on a set of rational limits on the scope of behavior that all of the above justify. My own feeling is that the point at which your actions have a direct impact on another person is the point at which the notion that your own value judgments are a sufficient justification for a particular action reaches its end. Beyond this point, you've got to find a common framework to justify your actions. The more serious your impact is on another person, or the more people it affects - the more important a common framework becomes, and the less likely it is that justifications that aren't based in fact or logic will be acceptable or defensible. The point at which people who believe that HIV infection doesn't cause AIDS, or that vaccines cause autism translate their beliefs into actions are directly harmful to others is the point at which they cross this boundary. Ditto for people who believe in witches, demonic possession, snake-oil, The Rapture, etc.... I definitely agree that empiricism should be a common basis for knowing and for understanding. But consider this: Although one might see religion to be grounded in an irrational basis it contains a certain amount of rationalism or, more correctly, legalism. Isn't a certain consistency of logic characteristic of two theologians of different beliefs arguing to each other the rightness of their particular religion or ideology? The particular issue that comes to my mind is the Temple Mount. I don’t recall if it was Gershom Gorenberg who made the observation that value judgments are instrumental in solving the problem presented by this issue but several years ago I recall reading or hearing his explanation of it. The facts alone are not enough to solve the problem. His point was that one has to consider the value judgments of both sides and treat them as ~equally true. Don’t ask me how he proposed to perform that balancing act! I suppose my fear of cold logic is its systematization so that something along the lines of that described in Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil is allowed to flourish. BTW, I believe in inoculations although I reserve judgment on some aspects of commonly accepted modern life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Interestingly enough, I think that the fact that we aren't and will never be calculating machines, and that we live in a world of vastly different and conflicting value judgments is what makes the role of logic and reason in certain aspects of public life so critical. Logic, reason, and evidence provide a means by which people who have vastly different religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives can nonetheless agree on the fact that, say, an elephant is larger than a mouse, or upon the elementary composition of water. Absent logic and reason, you are left with force and compulsion as the prime arbiters of disputes about the nature of reality. It's not as though you can't acknowledge the diversity of values, philosophies, perspectives, impulses, etc that drive human behavior and simultaneously insist on a set of rational limits on the scope of behavior that all of the above justify. My own feeling is that the point at which your actions have a direct impact on another person is the point at which the notion that your own value judgments are a sufficient justification for a particular action reaches its end. Beyond this point, you've got to find a common framework to justify your actions. The more serious your impact is on another person, or the more people it affects - the more important a common framework becomes, and the less likely it is that justifications that aren't based in fact or logic will be acceptable or defensible. The point at which people who believe that HIV infection doesn't cause AIDS, or that vaccines cause autism translate their beliefs into actions are directly harmful to others is the point at which they cross this boundary. Ditto for people who believe in witches, demonic possession, snake-oil, The Rapture, etc.... I definitely agree that empiricism should be a common basis for knowing and for understanding. But consider this: Although one might see religion to be grounded in an irrational basis it contains a certain amount of rationalism or, more correctly, legalism. Isn't a certain consistency of logic characteristic of two theologians of different beliefs arguing to each other the rightness of their particular religion or ideology? The particular issue that comes to my mind is the Temple Mount. I don’t recall if it was Gershom Gorenberg who made the observation that value judgments are instrumental in solving the problem presented by this issue but several years ago I recall reading or hearing his explanation of it. The facts alone are not enough to solve the problem. His point was that one has to consider the value judgments of both sides and treat them as ~equally true. Don’t ask me how he proposed to perform that balancing act! I suppose my fear of cold logic is its systematization so that something along the lines of that described in Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil is allowed to flourish. BTW, I believe in inoculations although I reserve judgment on some aspects of commonly accepted modern life. Don't have time to respond at length, so I'll have to defer to a couple of quotes: "The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters" ~ Goya. "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire. Reason may not be sufficient defend against the the kind of madness represented by totalitarian ideologies, but it's certainly necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Perhaps we should be wary against extremism in whatever form it takes. Yet, the human spirit in history appears guided by some numinous agent that finds expression or manifestation through radical change. It's a counterculture problem. What if, we were to find that morality actually does arise from the mammalian expression? Does that give mainstream respectability or legitimacy to animal rights? At what cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 What is the prime motivator in human affairs? Love. Have fun measuring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 What is the prime motivator in human affairs? Love. Have fun measuring it. Love? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Any of you...HOMOS try to slip that oxytocin shit in my drink....I'll kill ya. Be careful, Rob. All human behavior is a result of chemical/electrical activity; that's a given. How that chemical/electrical activity arises and changes over time is the complicated part. It's like; "yeah, wine is old grape skins and alcohol. We got that shit figured out." The question remains, however, why there seem to be a never ending variety of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I was thinking more along the lines of a therapy to help rid people of oxytocin dependancy. What good did it ever do anyone, anyway? Besides, narcotics are cheaper. And probably cause less trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 If you want to keep the opposite sex away, all you need is a mullet or an active Mounties membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken4ord Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) and we're supposed to give a shit why, exactly? Because you represent a better future, for all of us. I care because the crackpot ideas promulgated by this movement were an integral part of Thabo Mbeki's decision to reject simple anti-HIV interventions that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, for one thing. The related pseudoscientific hysteria that's driving the anti-vaccine movement serves as a barrier to the complete eradication of preventable diseases that have plagued humanity since time immemorial, and jeopardize the mass-vaccination efforts that lend protection to the people in society who are most vulnerable to the said diseases - the very young, the very old, the immunocompromised, etc. The sublime idiocy that undergirds the creationist movement represents a threat to sound scientific education - which is partly responsible for the genesis of these movements - but it's not a direct threat to anyone's health. Most people who are concerned about one are concerned about the other, but there are always exceptions. You, the embodiment of the better future that we should all strive for, should save your energy for things...like crusading against fluoridation. Mbeki was a lost cause anyways, that idoit thought, that after sleeping with a prostitute that was known to be HIV positive, that he couldn't contract the virus. This was because he washed himself after having sex with her. That wasn't Mbeki. It was Jacob Zuma. Whoops! Shit your right, I got them mixed up. Edited January 11, 2009 by ken4ord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Escape...if you can, avid consumer of my bullshit. It's difficult to escape that which is pervasive. Consumer sentiment index of your bullshit: Indifferent - 90% Averse - 9.99% Avid - 0.01% (that'd be you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 [video:youtube]1MMXvU4O9OA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 At least that's what this woman: Christine Maggiore, believed, and she dedicated her life to promoting that message. She passed on the virus to her daughter (the little girl in the photo), who died of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at the age of three. Now it's killed her too, but not before she could dedicate her remaining time to convincing other women to forgo the standard precautions used to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, striving to cultivate paranoid anti-science mythologies about HIV in Africa and elsewhere, etc. More on Christine and Her Crusade. This is bad craziness. Her irrational delusions about HIV differ from the lunacy the motivates the anti-vaccine crusaders by degree, but not in kind, and share quite a bit of philosophical and ideological common ground. I suspect that we'll be hearing more from these folks, rather than less, in the future. *Maybe the Foo Fighters, who evidently endorsed Maggiore's organization "Alive and Well," and her beliefs, will set them to music. "T-Cell counts maybe droppin', but big Pharma's pill's I'll never be Poppin...." http://www.foofighters.com/community_cause.html RE: the antivaccine angle Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade Guys preaching to the choir. The article, as originally written, gave advice to ignore those antivaccine folks. I disagree. It's a larger phenomenon with many fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Ran into a German guy in Nepal who did not believe in vaccines. When he returned to Germany he got very sick and the doctors were baffled for a while turned out he had Typhoid and they had not seen a case since WWII before any were born. Did not change his mind about vaccines though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.