Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a Tour of Mindmapping Links

From: Peter Jones (
Date: Thu Jul 12 2001 - 06:02:52 PDT

  • Next message: Dennis E. Hamilton: "RE: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a Tour of Mindmapping Links"

    Ah, then I don't agree with your thesis. For one thing, I don't think the two sides of the brain divide their agendas in the way you hope for most people. What if my heart is one that simply believes that I should do whatever I fancy? And what if the left-side of my brain then conspires with my right side to say that I should do whatever I fancy as long as I can get away with it under the rules of the system? Next thing you know I could be forcing software on folks and dancing a jig at the same time because the legal system is ropey and outmoded in some areas.
    It all boils down to the consideration of others, and at present there are aspects of life where the rules of the system allow you ignore the issue rather too much.
    John 'maddog' Hall's views in Eric Armstrong's recent post, and your need to edit John Deneen's post about entrepreneurship are evidence of this.

    There has been a great deal of effort expended in philosophy trying to make the ethical a matter of rational decision for precisely these reasons. Present ethical philosophy is still some way ahead of the legal system in many matters in this respect, but I believe its theoretical approach has to be proven to marry with significant aspects of legal precedent before moves to alter the legal system can be made.

    Cf. Immanuel Kant, and the seminal works of Martha Nussbaum if you really want to go for it.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Henry van Eyken
      Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a Tour of Mindmapping Links

      I meant with the statement roughly that there are circumstances under which the heart ought to guide the perceived selfinterest or, again roughly, where the right-brain should keep the left-brain in check.


      Peter Jones wrote:

        Hi, Yes, I'd understood that point. >In other words, our affect ought to do a better job of directing our intellect. I'm not sure I really understood this last point though, because affects are usually spoken of in relation to peripheral nervous system response to stimuli in all the literature I've read. Etc., etc.

      Community email addresses:
        Post message:
        List owner:

      Shortcut URL to this page:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 06:18:13 PDT