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

From: Dennis E. Hamilton (
Date: Fri Jul 13 2001 - 08:44:10 PDT

  • Next message: Peter Jones: "Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", etc."

    Kant gives several versions/consequences of the Categorical Imperative. One
    form is that human beings always be treated as ends, not means.

    Kant's principle can also be stated in a more limited way: In claiming
    moral/ethical justification for an act, application of the Categorical
    Imperative requires that the justification be something that one wills to be
    an ethical principle for everyone. It is not an ethical justification
    (relative to C.I.) if it fails that test.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Henry van Eyken []
      Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 05:49
      Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a
    Tour of Mindmapping Links

      Dennis, Peter.
      I had to look this up, Categorical Imperative. Found in my "The American
    Colege Dictionary":

      1. Ethics, the rule of Immanuel Kant that one must only do what he can
    will that all others should do under similar circumstances.
      2. The unconditional command of conscience.

      Those circumstances include all a person's mental makeup as developed from
    genes and the influences of home, family, playmates, schools, acquaintances,

      Ran into a striking example many years ago. Nepotism is frowned upon in
    western society, but in at least one other society it is considered highly
    unscrupulous not to offer a job to one's relatives first.

      This said, we can manage our way through life on a fairly common,
    operational understandings of what is right and wrong, what doesn't or does
    harm others.

      My wandering thoughts of last Monday's post in this thread were much the
    result of trying to come to terms of one of the books I bought about markup
    languages. Besides the author, the publisher (Que, a division of Macmillan)
    lists the names of 16 people on their staff, all involved in making the
    book. These include an acquisitions editor, a development editor, a managing
    editor, a project editor, a copy editor, two indexers, two proofreaders,
    three technical editors, a team cordinator, two designers, and a production
    person. Yet just about everything that can be wrong with a book is wrong
    with this one. Erroneous and contradictoray information, captions separated
    from the corresponding graphics by lines of text, poior typography, poor
    examples, badly written explanations, poor grammar (what are all those
    editors doing there, anyway?). A real drag.

      The cover quotes a member of the W3C: "... an excellent foundation for
    using this critical technology and also explains the advanced capabilities
    of XHTML that anyone can understand...." Well, anyone but me. (Assuming the
    author is an expert on the topic, I am still trying to learn from the book.

      The book invites readers, "Tell Us What You Think!" I emailed a couple of
    examples of what is seriously wrong with the book. The publisher did not
    bother to respond to them. What else is new?

      Aggravationssuch as these are commonplace. They use up time and energy. I
    consider it a form of theft. But then again, others may feel this is
    perfectly acceptable. Afterall, has it not been said from time immemorial:
    Let the buyer beware.


      "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote

        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! 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 : Fri Jul 13 2001 - 08:58:06 PDT