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

From: Peter Jones (ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2001 - 11:51:08 PDT

  • Next message: Henry van Eyken: "Re: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a Tour of Mindmapping Links"

    Yes, and actually, even as you were writing this, I was reviewing what I have just said. I am not sure that I am arguing very well, really. I think I can boil what I mean down to this:
    I think Henry is large part arguing for individuals to take greater moral responsibility, and to acknowledge that that responsibility must now always be assumed to be operating at a global (or greater scale). This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I also admit that I myself have been very slow to acknowledge just how deep (and wide) that runs, and I don't always manage to grasp it very well. The shift from local individualistic thinking to realisation of global responsibility for actions is a rather big idea to stuff into a tiny skull all at once.
    I think Henry is also arguing for individuals to take a more disciplined ethical approach to deciding what is a good path to choose and what is not; to encourage deeper meditation about choices, if you will. Again, I agree totally. And I think the role of eductation is paramount in this.

    But Henry then seemed to make an appeal to personal positive emotion to be the guide, and the problem I have with that is that:
    1) Not everybody is as nice as Henry seems to be. Their emotions just don't work that way. And if there is enough leeway in the system for a not-so-nice person to get away with stuff it breaks the links in the network for everyone.
    2) You can't say to Mr. X that what he's doing isn't nice because it just doesn't make you feel good. You need the objective rationalisation if you want to have grounds for enforcing ethical social policies.
    3) I'm just not convinced that emotions alone are the real guides. I believe emotions are somewhat atavistic -- a stimulus-response mechanism designed to promote individual homeostasis in the wild -- and have a tendency to promote over-generalization. They're not really designed for the full intricacies of modern social interaction although they have their place in the scheme of things.

    Lastly, folks' thinking isn't the problem, it's their choice of deeds. As in (2), thoughts don't really have consequences until they beget deeds.

    yours, struggling to regain some vague semblance of proper academic etiquette,
    Peter

    ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dennis E. Hamilton
      To: unrev-II@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 4:28 PM
      Subject: RE: [unrev-II] "As We May Think", The Exploratories Project & a Tour of Mindmapping Links

      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.

        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.

      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 - 12:08:19 PDT