|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detail, and the Golden Rule |
You are logged in
as guest. (Log in) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You need to log in to post
messages. |
Started by rshowalter at 09:33am Jul 7, 2002 BST The Golden
Rule is an old, old idea - present in many cultures. Perhaps it is
important enough to discuss - and perhaps it can be focused some, in
matters of detail.
Added, February 15, 2004 . . . . In looking at this
DETAIL, AND THE GOLDEN RULE link, I can now say - as I could not say then, that Dwight D. Eisenhower
"looked like God to me"
from where I was when I worked under him - and in some ways William Casey resembled
"the devil himself."
rshowalter - 09:36am Jul 7, 2002 BST (#1 of 41) I will be reposting here a
copy of Detail, and the Golden Rule Guardian Talk, Issues Started
by rshowalter at 10:51pm Sep 10, 2001 BST http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee8b441/0
. . . with modifications for crossreferencing with the current NYT Missile
Defense Board, and with some of the references to links on the MD board
that are no longer active copied onto Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and
Woman - As natural as human goodness? Guardian Talk, Issues, and
linked, via the NYT Missile Defense board
Issues of my security classification status have been discussed with
CIA since this thread was removed, and though some issues remain to be
resolved, and some discussions are ongoing, the relationship is far enough
along, and agreements know to the NYT (near the masthead) are far enough
along that there is no difficulty, in terms of my US legal or moral
obligations, in refiling this. I deeply appreciate the chance to do so.
MD2565
MD2589-2590
MD2866-7
I believe that this reposting is entirely appropriate, and relevant to
current events. The United States government, I believe, and others
believe, has taken some stances in internatinal affairs that might be
refocused or changed if the Bush administration paid more focused
attention to the old idea of the golden rule. rshowalter - 03:23pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#2 of 41) This is a condensation and
reposting of a thread started by Beckvaa on Feb 2-- "If Jesus
was alive today . . ."
I'm posting it because I care about the subject, and I'm putting it up
now to facilitate some discussions on Missile Defense going on in the
New York Times - Science - Missile Defense forum thread. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2484
I've posted a good deal about the NYT Missile Defense thread on other
Guardian Talk threads, including Paradigm Shift .... whose getting
there?
xpat "Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there?" Fri 28/07/2000 21:55 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@13543@.ee7726f/0
and Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror
Tue 24/10/2000 21:57 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@8908765@.ee7a163/0
, threads
Dawn Riley and I are very proud of.
I let this thread lapse in early August, but am reposting it now
because of discourse in the Missile Defense thread. gisterme , a
very frequent poster on the MD board, who I believe to have connections in
high places in the Bush administation, posted MD8731. . .
posted MD8731. . .
MD8737-8742
MD8737-8742
In MD8741 I said I would repost this thread, and I do so now.
Active links to these references via the NYT MD board shortly after
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3616
rshowalter - 03:24pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#3 of 41) One day after September 10th,
when this thread was last posted, our world changed, and a lot has
happened since. One thing that has happened to me is that I've worked
hard, and made some progress with some much-appreciated help, in getting
out of a mess due to my connection with the Cold War - - something I could
not disclose when this thread was first written.
Some of my background training was connected to issues of
mathematicsand physical description that our culture, alas, sometimes both
worships and fears.
But there's nothing especially supernatural about the stories I've had
to tell, though in a sense, they have been "spooky." Debuting: One Spy,
Unshaken By GEORGE F. CUSTEN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/weekinreview/23CUST.html
http://www.mrshowalter.net/DebutingOneSpy_Unshaken.htm
My concerns about the dangers of nuclear weapons, and some of the
instabilities I've seen in some patterns in the Bush administration, have
been entirely genuine. Playing Know and Tell by JOHN SCHWARTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/weekinreview/09BOXA.html
http://www.mrshowalter.net/PlayingKnowAndTell.htm
. . . MD2540 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3166
MD2854-2857 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3548
There's no need to assume that I've been speaking to the diety -- I've
been claiming that I was briefed, instead, by a man some think of as "the
devil himself" -- Bill Casey. And I've been working hard, for a long time,
asking people to check this - and tried to provide many leads that they
could check.
My concerns about "last and final things" - and about decent, stable
human relations - are perfectly real - and the amount of work I've done
related to these issues is a matter of record.
The churches are full of people who feel that God speaks to them in
some sense. I've sometimes felt that way myself, and I feel that I have as
much right to feel that God may have spoken to me as two prominant
born-again Christians in the present U.S. administration - Attorney
General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush.
I feel sure that I am a "child of nature" -- much less sure that
I'm a "child of God." My faith in God is not at all strong. I'm a
doubter. I don't think my maternal grandfather, who was a competent
clergyman, would have been surprised or uncomfortable with that. A lot of
people feel that way.
But I have been professionally concerned, for a long time, with human
interactions. And the stability of human relations. I feel sure that these
are key things to check, every which way, when stability matters enough to
think hard about:
"Solutions" not consistent with these constraining patterns may work for a short time, or with great strains on parts of the human system involved -- but they are unstable. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html . . . especially the image. Berle and Maslow: MD667-8 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/826 It seems to me that people need to think harder - more competently -
more concretely about the golden rule - - an old idea that might do
with some sharpening. This thread is about that. rshowalter - 03:26pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#4 of 41) From a systems point
of view, I think this.
Can you put the story together as a story of somebody fingered by a
God, and, at considerable inconvenience, coerced into working something
out for mankind? It seems to me that you can, and the details I know
fit that.
You can also, I believe, construct explanations in scientific, or
agnostic mode. These are the explanations that I most often prefer.
Either way, the human lessons are the same lessons, and just as useful
as they happen to be, no matter how those lessons were learned. rshowalter - 03:26pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#5 of 41) Some summaries of my
background, that may perhaps interest some. One may call these "stories."
MD6057
MD6370-1
MD6397
MD6398-9
MD6400
MD7385-6 ...
MD7388-9 ...
MD7390
Active links to these references via the NYT MD board shortly after
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3616
rshowalter - 03:27pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#6 of 41) At one level of
another, "the golden rule" is probably as old as the
species homo , but even so, it is an important message to
state clearly, in ways that people can use.
All modern religions have something like it. We can set it out in the
Christian tradition -- trying to do so at such a simple level that it will
be common ground for many people, of many religions and many religious
views, including athiests who are also humanists.
Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was what he said he
was, and what a lot of people around him thought he was - a man, chosen
somehow by God, to deliver a message.
Not such a strange idea, if you believe in God at all. Given the horror
of the Roman Empire, if a God was around, that God might well have wanted
to intervene. That makes a certain amount of sense to me.
"THE GOLDEN RULE" - the basic message that Jesus delivered, was a very
good message for that time (and for our time as well) - a message that,
somehow, didn't do as well as one would like.
That clear message may have broken down the Roman Empire, but didn't
lead to a better sociotechnical system for people to live in.
The Middle Ages were a mess. People didn't find ways to redeem many
situations that went from bad to worse to total breakdown, over centuries.
Maybe Jesus did the best he could to deliver a full message that could
have avoided that - but somehow fell short.
Maybe people couldn't have heard such a message, no matter how
eloquently he delivered it.
Maybe he was imperfectly briefed by God.
rshowalter - 03:28pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#7 of 41) If God saw a mess today, and
had to get that mess cleaned up by a person (or a pair of people, or a
small group of persons) that job would have to be pretty simple, and
pretty basic.
How might this hypothetical God go about it? It would be hard, even if
the message was simple.
You can consider the story of Jesus, and believe it, and believe the
effects of his teaching were as powerful as Christians believe, and not
believe in God at all.
Perhaps, somehow, Jesus saw something plain that was less plain to
others, felt he had a duty to do, and did it as best he could.
He could be a very great teacher, and "The Golden Rule" could be as
important as it is felt to be, without necessarily evoking the notion of
God. rshowalter - 03:29pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#8 of 41) If a figure or messiah
team was fingered by a competent God today, religious aspects of his
message would have to be entirely ambiguous and deniable. Religious wars
are a mess, and different peoples need different cultures.
But, if the messages that needed to be delivered were simple enough,
and essentially secular enough, the religious status of the messiah figure
might be kept entirely ambiguous to all concerned - including the messiah
figure himself.
Ideally, religous folks would feel reinforced in their religious
beliefs, scoffers would feel reinforced in their beliefs about the glory
of secular humanism, everyone could go to Hell in their own way, yet the
lessons that had to be delivered could get delivered, and the reasons the
competent God had to get the messages delivered might be served.
If the messages involved are simple enough for human flesh to work out
and deliver, why not? rshowalter - 03:30pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#9 of 41) Here's the crux of the
message - not a very complicated one:
Bigotry comes from all sides - and nobody CAN see every other point
of view. Few enough are clear about their own ideas.
Tolerance that is sophisticated enough to be workable is
intellectually harder than intolerance, or pat answers.
I think if Jesus was alive today, he might cry out.
rshowalter - 03:31pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#10 of 41) The "Golden Rule" is a
minimal standard, but very good for the basic interactions that peace and
economic cooperation takes. Practically every religious and cultural group
pays some lip service to the "golden rule." The form I remember reads
The Golden Rule is less than a workable, comprehensive guide to living.
But now, it is worse used than it ought to be, since "others" in
the rule is usually read to be "others within my group" and not
"others in outside groups, as well." The point needs to be taught,
with intellectually clear context, today.
For complicated practical cases the "golden rule" has to be subject to
qualifications, especially when it applies outside a group. But the golden
rule counts "when it really matters" ... "when cooperation is required"
..... "when things are going wrong." It isn't necessary or desirable, to
do away with the tribal ties that bind and provide identity. But workable,
nonpathological interfaces between tribes ARE required.
When peace seems impossible, these interfaces are lacking. The problem
is emotional, of course, but it has a large intellectual content, too.
The "golden rule" is especially important when passions stand
against it - when the people involved hate each other. It is then that the
"golden rule" is most essential for complex cooperation and for peace.
How would you want an enemy to treat you? You'd be repelled if he
attempted to embrace you. Instead, b you'd want clear communication, with
clear, proportionate and credible threats and incentives.
You'd want clear rules of conduct agreed upon between you, that you
could each abide by. So that you could cooperate, stay out of each other's
way, maintain each other's dignity, and interact as efficiently and
honorably as possible. Neither side would have to love, or forgive, or
like the other. Neither side would have a right to expect it. What each
side would want would be a way of living together in peace.
Friendship, if it happened at all, would come much later. First,
livable patterns of peaceful interaction need to be fashioned. In the
Middle East, and elsewhere these are needed. And they are possible only if
all sides can remember that even their enemies are full, complicated,
vulnerable, dangerous human beings. rshowalter - 03:32pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#11 of 41) It may be that in the Middle
East, and other places where human cooperation goes grossly, perversely
wrong, people are failing, at the level of intellect, imagination, and
feeling, to understand what workable reciprocity must mean.
The "Golden Rule" is intensely practical, when people (who may be very
different, who may not like each other, who may know different things)
have to cooperate and live and work with each other.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This
admonition, in various forms, at various levels of focus, may be as old as
civilization. Every religious person in the Middle East is probably
indentified with a religion that reveres this "rule" at some level.
But if the "others" in question are too different, if they are not
of the same tribe, if the stakes are too high, the "golden rule" seems to
break down completely. People cease to think of each other as human
beings.
And neither high levels of peace, nor cooperation, nor prosperity are
possible among groups that can't deal with each other as human beings.
This, in my view, may be the biggest, most pervasive source of problems
in the world today, and the most basic cause of ugliness in the sorry saga
that is much of human history.
When different groups interact, and when things are complicated, and
when group identity must be maintained, not surrendered, then "The Golden
Rule" presents intellectual challenges, challenges of discipline, and
challenges of sympathy that have not been satisfactorily worked out.
That's true everywhere, but is especially true in the parts of the world
where human cooperation and tolerance fail most conspicuously.
rshowalter - 03:33pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#12 of 41) In my view, the most
practical, life-and-death problem in the world today may be at once a
social and a religious problem. It needs more discussion than it has
gotten.
For example, the doings in the Middle East seem incomprehensibly
nightmarish. I feel that consideration of pervasive, complicated
breakdowns of "the Golden Rule" explains a lot of the horror.
And I also feel that careful discussion of the "Golden Rule" in
complicated cases, that moves minds and hearts, may be essential for any
workable peace in the region.
And essential, also, to workable solutions to many many other
circumstances where people look stupid and ugly -- often the same people
who can be very beautiful in other ways. rshowalter - 03:33pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#13 of 41) There are some specific and
somewhat technical issues that may be useful to consider, when trying to
practically apply The Golden Rule
I've said elsewhere that I believe that the code of the brain is in
breakable condition - that we can start to break that code now.
My partner Dawn Riley and I have been engaged in something related -
breaking the code of i "the social-linguistic construction of reality" ,
showing how it works by example, and combing out some consistent,
correctable errors in the construction procedures by which we usually
construct our "reality."
We've been at that for about a year now - the first big chunk of it
we'd show others is in "Paradign Shift - Whose Getting There" xpat
"Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there?" Fri 28/07/2000 21:55
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@7000007@.ee7726f/0
Where, if
you look, you'll see how far we had to go, and how much the work we've
done has been a partnership effort.
We've kept talking about social-logical construction of "reality",
thinking about it, and kept trying to make it clearer and clearer, more
and more condensed. Working for focus. We think that's how a lot of useful
intellectual work gets done. We think we've gotten somewhere. rshowalter - 03:34pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#14 of 41) We're suggesting a more
disciplined search for beauty.
We've specifically worked on concerns about war, and about breakdowns
of complex cooperation that produce human disfunction and poverty.
We've also come to think that there is something natural, something
fundamental, about man's inhumanity to others, when the others are
"outsiders" in some sense -- that we have to be careful, and construct
patterns where horror can be avoided, and cooperation can come into being.
Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human
goodness? rshowalter "Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As
natural as human goodness?" Sun 12/11/2000 18:11 rshowalter - 03:35pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#15 of 41) In my view, America is sick,
and western culture as well, in a practical and moral sense, that may be
able to improved significantly. There's a disjunction, in the culture,
between
The connection between aesthetics, objective and human fact, and
morality seems to me well framed if one thinks of "beauty" as the word is
often used informally, and it's opposite, "ugliness."
In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm
Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact
sciences:
I think the argument that
In this sense, "beauty" "morality" and "competent manipulation of the
objective" are ALL cultural constructs, and depend, in the dirty and
complex world, on priority orderings. rshowalter - 03:36pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#16 of 41) For example, I'm running a
negotiation, involving a paradigm change, and I was carefully coached on
the need for priority ordering some years ago, by a wise bureacrat.
My priority ordering, this time, says that I must find accomodations
that serve, in order of consideration and importance
In my own case, if I can meet the priorities above my own in order, I'm
in a pretty good position to strike a good deal for myself, and to do so
in a way that permits me to work effectively, flexibly, and comfortably,
as a member of the society in which I live, with the obligations that I
have accrued, considered in practical detail. rshowalter - 03:37pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#17 of 41) I think nuclear weapons
are unbearably ugly, with the moral and practical difficulties
overwhelming ugliness carries. I think that if the problems were adressed
by the governments involved, with priorities explicitly clear,
accomodations much better than the present ones could be worked out.
rshowalter - 03:38pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#18 of 41) I believe that "getting to
beauty" is somehow what happens in our minds, by standards in our
minds, when we "get to really be comfortable with an idea."
It seems to me that it is worth taking another pass, at the discussion
of beauty here. A focusing pass.
I'll call it
Goodness can be judged in terms of that context,
The beauty, and ugliness, of a theory can be judged, in terms of the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the context provided by data not previously considered.
both
and Theories that are useful work comfortably in people's heads. Both the "beauty" and "ugliness" of theory are INTERESTING. Both notions are contextual, and cultural. Ugliness is an especially interesting notion.
The ugly parts are where new beauty is to be found. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
But there's reason to do it: ... the ugly parts provide clues to new
progress -- hope that new, more powerful kinds of theoretical and
practical beauty can be found. rshowalter - 03:38pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#19 of 41) Here's a part were I did more
work than Dawn Riley, though she was indispensible:
rshowalter - 03:39pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#20 of 41) As Dawn and I talked and
talked, especially from a perspective she knows a lot about - evolutionary
psychology, the idea condensed that people as animals had particular
adaptations for dealing with "outsiders" that made sense for paleolithic
team hunters, but made much less sense today. And so with Dawn's
encouragement and guidance I started a thread on Nov 12 2000 that we've
continued Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human
goodness? rshowalter "Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As
natural as human goodness?" Sun 12/11/2000 18:11
Here is how it starts:
rshowalter - 03:40pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#21 of 41) These ideas seem right to me,
and in a sense, it seems to me that I'm only setting out "what
everybody already knows."
But with a difference.
After Dawn Riley and I chewed these ideas around a while, we felt they
may have become a little clearer.
We hope so. rshowalter - 03:41pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#22 of 41) rshowalter - 05:48pm May 23,
2001 BST (#21 of 41) This thread is a key part of the argument in the NYT
Missile Defense forum:
MD4159 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4456
I think odds are that some able people, with responsible positions
concerning nuclear matters, are reading this thread, in several countries.
rshowalter - 03:42pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#23 of 41) It helps to KEEP TALKING
!
Dawn and I have been very grateful for the existence of the GUARDIAN
TALK boards, and the NYT forums. In these, we can discuss issues that the
focused journals could not treat. They have a real, creative intellectual
service to perform.
If one is to have hope of working out a problem, one must first
sharply, carefully describe it.
These talkboards and forums can facilitate this descriptive sharpening,
and the creation of this new beauty.
With a lot of talking and thinking, new ideas come into being, focus,
sharpen, and become right, spare, and simple. In these threads, one can
see this happening. The same processes, seeking logical beauty and
beautiful fits to cases, applied again and again, can bring correct and
useful conclusions to life.
That is, if crucial mistakes can be avoided. As they almost
always can be, if people check their work carefully, in enough ways, and
if they doubt themselves and others enough to stay awake to the logical
dangers that go with the human condition.
This makes sense, whether you are religious or not. rshowalter - 03:43pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#24 of 41) from #202 -- rshowalter
"God is the Projection of Mans Unrealised Potential - Discuss" Tue
09/01/2001
" . . . . . it seems to me that an argument about how minds work is
relevant to discussions of how humans must make and experience philosophy
and religion - and I believe that argument tends to reinforce intuitive,
non-reductionist ways of thinking and feeling. Pardon me if I add these
ideas here.
I've been very impressed with
A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory
of Acquisition, Induction and Representation of Knowledge by Thomas K.
Landauer and Susan Dumais
Landauer is at the Department of Psychology, University of Colorado,
Boulder, and Dumais is now at Microsoft.
Here is a draft of that paper, which was accepted with revisions, and
published in Psychological Review , v104, n.2, 211-240, 1997 http://lsi.argreenhouse.com/lsi/papers/PSYCHREV96.html
I'm also hotkeying a piece of my own, that was intended to be part of a
thesis proposal that has not been accepted. "Statistical-Associational
Correllation and Symbol Reasoning may be mutually reinforcing. The example
of LSA." http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/lsa
It includes these passages:
"Landauer and Dumais draw this basic conclusion:
Ive been suggesting that neural function, incorporating the corrected
S-K neural conduction equation, might have that approximate effect.
Active links to these references via the NYT MD board shortly after
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3616
LSA is the best illustration I have encountered of the potential power
of correlation (that is, the potential power of complicated association)
with nearly unlimited computational resources devoted to it. That power is
great. That power also seems strongly complementary to inherently
sequential and inherently symbolic logical processes.
. . . . If there IS much latent, inexpressible, extensive
information in our brains, this is a STRONG argument for the power (but
not the infallibility) of human feelings of intuition. . . . . If there IS
much latent, inexpressible, extensive information in our brains, this is a
STRONG argument against over-reliance on "logical rigor" and stark "simple
solutions" to human problems, human feeling, and human communication.
Whether these aspects are God-given, or natural, they still seem to be
profound and central aspects of what it means to be human, and what we, as
humans have to feel with, relate with, and hope with.
If our minds are profoundly more powerful than mere LSA devices, but
contain their correllational abilities as well (and I think they must)
then God would be, at least , the Projection of Mans Unrealised Potential,
and combined individual, environmental, and social experience and
feelings.
And religious and moral thoughts and feelings would be as profoundly
important, and potentially right and useful, as any thoughts and feelings
we, as sentient animals, "a little lower than the angels" can have.
THIS WOULD NOT DEPEND ON THE EXISTENCE, NONEXISTENCE, OR DETAILED
LEVEL OF DAY-TO-DAY INTEREST OF A DIETY.
Thoughts and insights could be right, profound, and even "holy"
without invoking any notion of divine intervention or inspiration.
rshowalter - 03:45pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#25 of 41) In America, millions of
people think that they are divinely inspired. They get together on
Sundays, and talk about it. Every single born-again Christain claims to
feel this way.
I felt that way myself, though I didn't use the phrase "born again"
when I was in my early teens - and I believe that the millions who claim
to have had the "born again" experience actually have had something happen
to them that they interpret as having been touched by God.
I'm a Baptist by birth and training, with a religious background very
similar to Jimmy Carter's. A background similar to millions of other
people's background.
I'm a backslider - I haven't been to church, except when visiting my
parents, in years, and not often then.
But the notion of feeling a calling, and knowing what my duty is, seems
natural to me.
There's an old hymn that describes the experience of religious
inspiration, quite unselfconsciously. I believe that most of the people in
the churches where this hymn is sung have shared the experience it
describes.
This hymn is sung with joy.
A verse, from memory, goes something like this.
Nobody I know of singing this song thinks a visable diety comes down, made flesh, and engages them. They percieve some messages, that in some way "pop into their heads" that they consider to be "the voice of God." The religious interpretation isn't the only possible one, but it doesn't seem unreasonable, either. I feel sure the new Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, has had this experience of "a voice" somehow happening in his mind, and has interpreted it as a touch from a personal God. So have many, many millions of people, if you take them at their word, in America and all over the world. I have no reason to doubt them. Many Protestants, Baptists among them, have a notion of a "calling" - a sense that one percieves one's duty, and is expected to do it. Nobody much discusses a "voice of God" when calling is discussed. But people are supposed to know what their duty is, and the knowing, if it seems sure, is respected. That provides some order and organization for millions of peoples' lives. Many of them very able and accomplished people. None of this is the least bit uncommon in Christian households, all over the world, and people of different faiths have, by all accounts, many similar feelings. There's every reason to believe that followers of Allah, or other religions, have similar responses. The feelings are real. The actions based on the feeling are real. I happened to be especially interested in systems analysis and mathematical modeling issues, and have done sustained work on the construction of mathematical models from coupled circumstances. For seven years, I worked with a partner, a very distinguished academic, who happened to be a nonpracticing Jew, on these coupled equations http://www.mrshowalter.net/klinerec . Both Steve Kline and I felt, quite simply, that we were doing something we felt duty bound, morally compelled, to do. Work on complex cooperation has been of interest to me for many years as well. I could just as well be an athiest. Totally non-divine explanations for absolutely everything that has happened to me are possible, and I find them comforting. I don't think anybody has ever seen me try to convert anyone to any fundamentally religious (as opposed to ethical) principle at all. From an aesthetic and intellectual point of view, religious
explanations seem reasonable to me, as well. Especially so since my own
work indicates that, even at the stark level of physical modelling, there
are emergent properties. From where I sit, small as I am, large as
the world is, a religious interpretation makes sense enough. I know enough
about my limitations to know that I can neither prove or rule out such
possibilities. rshowalter - 03:46pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#26 of 41) From a systems point
of view, I think this.
Any God worth respecting at all, looking at the world as it is,
would deliver any message SHE felt called upon to deliver in as
nonsectarian, or nondenominational, or religiously ambiguous manner as
could possibly occur.
If, with the help of my partner Dawn Riley, who has done so much of
what we've done together, we have worked out messages worth knowing -- and
I believe we have -- they are messages that we hope can be useful, and
accomodated, within very many religious, ethical and philosophical
traditions.
Can you put the story together as a story of somebody fingered by a
God, and, at considerable inconvenience, coerced into working something
out for mankind? It seems to me that you can, and the details I know fit
that.
You can also, I believe, construct explanations in scientific, or
agnostic mode.
Either way, the human lessons, and a single procedural lesson in
modeling physical circumstances, are the same lessons, and just as useful
as they happen to be, no matter how those lessons were learned. rshowalter - 03:50pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#27 of 41) Thinking about the golden
rule, it is bracing, but essential, to recall how easily we can all be
sure about things that are wrong. And justify on the basis of superficial
checking, things without real foundation.
Putting Your Faith in Science? by GINA KOLATA http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/weekinreview/27KOLA.html
is, I believe, a fine contribution to the culture. What it says
reinforces, and reinforces strongly, the arguments Dawn Riley and I have
been making, about the need for checking , in Paradigm Shift .... whose
getting there? Guardian Talk, Science .
Kolata's piece, which makes essential arguments beautifully, and takes
them into the mainstream culture with a grace I could never muster, and
from the commanding position of the NYT Week In Review, ought to make a
dent in many minds. It ends:
sn1337 . . . sn1342 . . . sn1343
MD4210
Active links to these references via the NYT MD board shortly after
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3616
rshowalter - 03:51pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#28 of 41) wildem21 - 04:23pm May
28, 2001 BST (#30 of 41) THE GOLDEN RULE is, was, and ever shall be:
willjusa - 04:41pm May 28, 2001 BST (#31 of 41)
Or its corollary: Those with the guns make the rules. Or as Capone put
it: "You can get a lot further with a kind word and a gun then you can
with a kind word alone."
--------------------------------------------
wildem21 - 05:03pm May 28, 2001 BST (#32 of 41)
Al and Mao.
------------------------------------------
willjusa - 09:28pm May 28, 2001 BST (#33 of 41)
Mao Capone ? I didn't know Al had a brother named Mao. An
interersting pair of bookends, though. Neither worth writing home about.
rshowalter - 03:53pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#29 of 41) xpat - 02:32am May 31,
2001 BST (#34 of 41) Showalter:
In disfunctional families .. and at some point .. pehaps when the key
players leave (and leave a mess) families may become disfuncional ..as
they change pecking order and alignment .. i noted the golden rule .. you
don't have to love each other, but ... need the golden rule as a measure
... to settle disputes!
The Golden Rule must apply across the board to many many situations!
----------------------------------------
xpat - 02:35am May 31, 2001 BST (#36 of 41)
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-08-00.htm
--------------------------------------------------
xpat - 02:37am May 31, 2001 BST (#37 of 41)
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm
rshowalter - 03:54pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#30 of 41) rshowalter - 02:16pm Jun 1,
2001 BST
Harry J. Gensler has great references, to a great deal of careful
thought, in http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm
I liked this -- but how much detail is needed to meet what is said!
Lies, taken as correct, can and often do have very bad consequences.
An essential requirement, to make the Golden Rule more operational,
is to find ways to increase the incidence of factually correct
information, and reduce the amount that is deceptive.
Checking is a moral issue, as well as a practical one, right
here. rshowalter - 03:55pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#31 of 41) The idea that checking
must be morally forcing is still very much outside the mainstream.
But it is a crucial idea, if we are to get beyond a "culture of lying"
to a culture permitting more complicated, just, productive cooperation -
and the idea that checking is obligatory in politics is becoming
more discussable.
Since we all depend on cooperation for most of what makes
life good and possible, this is an important point of hope.
Lies terminate the possibilities of cooperation and peace, much too
often. rshowalter - 03:55pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#32 of 41) How much better the world
would be, how much less agony there would now be, if lies and self
deception about AIDS could have been less, and discipline in the common
good could have been greater.
See an admirable NYT Special AIDS at 20 -- http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/aids-index.html
and especially a stunning graphic THE SIZE OF AIDS ON A (NATIONAL
AND GLOBAL) SCALE http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/06/05/science/sci_AIDS_010605_01.pdf
rshowalter - 03:56pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#33 of 41) Thoughts about getting more
good done, and less bad, using internet discourse.
MD4532
Active links to these references via the NYT MD board shortly after
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3616
BuddhaPest - 04:11pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#34 of 41) rshowalter, I can't
seem to access any of your NYT links. rshowalter - 05:18pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#35 of 41) I can't access them either,
right now - which is why the "shortly after" in the description of links
just above.
That happens to the NYT thread from time to time -- but so far, the
thread has returned in not too long.
Sometimes I wonder - - Why, oh why, is it so hard for me to get decent
checking from my own government?
But sometimes I hope that people are being careful, and paying
attention.
The New York Times is showing considerable distinction and
courage today in other ways:
I liked this piece especially.
Succeeding in Business by Paul Krugman http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
It seems to me that it would do great good if responsible people all
over the world, including leaders, insisted on getting some facts .
I'll try to keep my promise about the link, as soon as I can. For now,
you can go to the references themselves, without the NYT stage of linkage
- - they are posted in numerical order in MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN .
. . Guardian Talk, Issues . lchic - 07:12pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#36 of 41) NYTimes Forum (reader's
opinion) is ... out to lunch ... may be having a weekend -
SystemsAdminTechnicalOverhaul! lchic - 07:16pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#37 of 41) Take this quote from Paul
Krugman's artical, transpose the company name (Harken) to become the USA
Nation ... transposting Bush to become Bush&Associates ....
The Harken shareholders were stripped naked ..... is the same thing
happening to the 'average Joe' in the USA.
Who's getting gold under Bush and whose having to work harder and
dig more dirt to give the gift!?! lchic - 07:21pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#38 of 41) When does the demand for
'fairness' in a population cause a national 'mexican wave' of gut
revoltion effect?
rshowalter - 11:10pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#39 of 41) The first posting on this
thread includes this:
"Issues of my security classification status have been discussed
with CIA since this thread was removed, and though some issues remain to
be resolved, and some discussions are ongoing, the relationship is far
enough along, and agreements know to the NYT (near the masthead) are far
enough along that there is no difficulty, in terms of my US legal or moral
obligations, in refiling this. I deeply appreciate the chance to do
so.
MD2565
MD2589-2590
MD2866-7
"I believe that this reposting is entirely appropriate, and relevant to
current events.
Here is the text of those NYT Missile Defense postings. They are
part of an ongoing discussion on that thread, that I feel certain has been
monitored occasionally by the government.
rshow55 - 08:34am Jun 16, 2002 EST (#2565 of 2592) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3198
Beautiful Week in Review , beautiful editorials, and fine Op-Eds
today!
I'm wanting to proceed carefully, on my private concerns, and on issues
very much connected with missile defense. I have hopes of being, in
manj's phrase, "completely unshackled" - - and my recent
conversations with CIA are consistent with that.
But the meaning of words, and the context in which action is possible,
need to be considered. CIA seems to want, and want very much, to restrict
direct contact between me and an officer of the agency who I contacted -
and so this is a reasonable channel.
The most key point in my last week's conversation with CIA is expressed
in the following statement - a statement dictated to me emphatically,
forcefully, by a C.I.A. official. The statement is well connected, I feel,
with material in the TIMES today. Here is that statement:
What can the bolded words above reasonably mean? If "to have no
interest" means " not to care " - I'd find the phrase
inconsistent with the reasonable and probable. I believe most other people
would, as well, if they consider what has been said and done.
If "to have no interest" means "to have no title in, no
property values in, no special right to control" then I find the
statement reasonable, and a statement that may be the basis for
acceptable, practical, honorable conduct for all involved.
There are some facts that can be established, from the evidence of this
thread. C.I.A. may not care about any of my material. However, from time
to time, gisterme has shown evidence of caring. And, by a
reasonable "collection of dots" and "connection of dots," gisterme
may reasonably be judged to have clear links, and high ones, with the Bush
administration.
MD2531 rshow55 6/14/02 6:34pm
I think it is important, and in the national interest, for people to
know how this matter has been handled so far. I've been trying to work in
the reasonable national interest, and believe I have done so.
MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:35am ... MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am
rshow55 - 08:19am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2589 of 2592) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3227 Postings by gisterme on this thread since March 1, 2002: (a continuation of other postings showing 750 postings before those below.) MD38 gisterme 3/1/02 9:26pm ... MD719 gisterme 3/20/02 1:41pm A response to gisterme from me: MD1255 rshow55 4/11/02 7:32am MD1281 gisterme 4/12/02 3:00am ... MD1282 gisterme 4/12/02 3:15am MD2137 gisterme 5/10/02 3:44am ... MD2138 gisterme 5/10/02 3:53am rshow55 - 08:20am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2590 of 2592) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3228 MD2565 rshow55 6/16/02 8:34am includes this:The most key point in my last week's conversation with CIA is expressed in the following statement - a statement dictated to me emphatically, forcefully, by a C.I.A. official. The statement is well connected, I feel, with material in the TIMES today. Here is that statement:
What can the bolded words above reasonably mean? If "to have no interest" means " not to care" - I'd find the phrase inconsistent with the reasonable and probable. I believe most other people would, as well, if they consider what has been said and done. If "to have no interest" means "to have no title in, no property values in, no special right to control" then I find the statement reasonable, and a statement that may be the basis for acceptable, practical, honorable conduct for all involved. There are some facts that can be established, from the evidence of this thread. C.I.A. may not care about any of my material. However, from time to time, gisterme has shown evidence of caring. And, by a reasonable "collection of dots" and "connection of dots," gisterme may reasonably be judged to have clear links, and high ones, with the Bush administration. rshow55 - 12:06pm Jul 4, 2002 EST (#2866 of 2870) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3566 MD2812 rshow55 7/1/02 8:51am Questions for a 4th of July discussion:
You can "call me Ishmael" or not, as you choose. If I'm Ishmael, I've been at it, consistently, for a long time. Within my limitations, I'm doing the best I can, and I'm trying to be a patriot, too. I'm trying to debrief, in ways consistent with my promises to Casey, and recent promises I've made to CIA as well. Some of that has gone on in past days and weeks, on this thread - and maybe that's a good way. For some purposes, maybe an ideal way. Problem is, sometimes an ideal approach for one set of objectives is exactly wrong for another - and things may be complicated enough that both kinds of approaches may be necessary. That takes exception handling. MD2813 rshow55 7/1/02 2:32pm The Music Man is a famous movie about checking, and courtship, exception handling, and redemption. It is a very black comedy, utterly charming at some levels, unnerving in others, about the things that worry me most. Movies are special, very expensive and fancy stories - never factually true in all respects -- never complete in all details -- that speak to people, and become part of people's mental furniture, part of national discussion. But they represent patterns that are, in some sense, valuable to people. On this thread a number of movies have been discussed, including The Sum of All Fears http://movies.go.com/movies/S/sumofallfearsthe_2001/ , The Bourne Identity http://www.bourne-identity.com/ , Good Will Hunting http://www.eonline.com/Facts/Movies/0,60,63329,00.html , and A Beautiful Mind . From MD2854 rshow55 7/3/02 10:28am on yesterday, I told a "story" that I think fits a lot, whether you "call me Ishmael" or not.This thread has gone on a long time, and many of the technical issues regarding missile defense that have been treated are summarized in MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am . I don't think any of the basic conclusions in the references cited there can reasonably be thought to have changed. There's pl rshowalter - 11:11pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#40 of 41) There's plenty to be proud of
about America. Plenty to celebrate. But we could be better, and have even
more reason to be proud.
Happy 4th of July!
rshow55 - 12:29pm Jul 4, 2002 EST (#2867 of 2870) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/3568
MD2848 rshow55 7/2/02 10:56pm
rshowalter - 11:36pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#41 of 41)
These are key things to check, every which way, when stability matters
enough to think hard about:
It seems to me that people need to think harder - more competently -
more concretely about the golden rule as well.
I've put some thoughts about that in a Guadian Talk Thread, DETAIL
AND THE GOLDEN RULE , which was last put up on September 10, 2001, and
removed a few weeks thereafter. I believe that it makes sense to cite it
again.
The key point of the thread is this:
The Missile Defense links cited in that thread have been removed, but
I've made them available as follows. Links cited in DETAIL AND THE GOLDEN
RULE are set out in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man
MD4157 to 4532 some cites from May 22, 2001- Jun 6, 2001 Mankind's
Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness?" Sun
07/07/2002 #290 on . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@7077007@.ee7b085/330
MD6057-6403 some cites from Jun 26, 2001 to Jul 2, 2001 "Mankind's
Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness?" Sun
07/07/2002 #292 on http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@70707007@.ee7b085/332
MD7384-7394 some cites from Jul 24, 2001 "Mankind's Inhumanity to
Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness?" Sun 07/07/2002 #296 on
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@0707077007@.ee7b085/336
MD8698-8832 Some cites from Sept 9, 2001 to Sept 12, 2001 "Mankind's
Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness?" Sun
07/07/2002 #299 on http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@070707007@.ee7b085/339
Some Cites from How the Brain Works 2178 -2256 Jan 8, 2001 to
Feb 25, 2001 "Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as
human goodness?" Sun 07/07/2002 #309 on http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@070707007@.ee7b085/349
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||