Thanks for this.
I am often too slow in being suspicious of theses that aren't based on
recognition and ownership of (and compassion for) the prospect that we are
all alike. The Categorical Imperative is a great place to stand in
reviewing my own arguments!
I have a practice, that I don't always apply in time, is that every time I
find myself demonizing another, I am looking in a mirror.
-- Dennis
Dennis E. Hamilton
AIIM DMware Technical Coordinator
------------------
mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org tel. +1-425-793-0283
http://www.dmware.org fax. +1-425-430-8189
ODMA Support http://www.infonuovo.com/odma
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Jones [mailto:ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 06:03
To: unrev-II@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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.
cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry van Eyken
To: unrev-II@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a
Tour of Mindmapping Links
Peter.
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.
Henry
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: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Choose from 1000s of job listings!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 08:41:51 PDT