LS Re: Being predictable

Magnus Berg (
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:38:08 +0100

Hi Donny and Squad

Donny wrote:
> By unphil. I really had in mind that it's "pre-philosophical"
> *Rasonnieren* -- in other words: It's proving, or attempting to do so.
> Scientists, logicians and mathamaticians prove, but let us insted ask,
> "What is a proof?" We don't need to pursue The Truth! (especially if we
> think that that's not imporatant next to Quality -- Otherwise your Q is no
> different from Plato's Good.) --HaHa, so there; tale that, you nave!--

Actually, Kelly Sedinger posted a paper about the difference between
Good and Quality in the early days of the Lila Squad, are you still around

Can't remember much of it right now, but I believe that the main difference
was that Plato's Good was an absolute goal, you could actually attain such
a (static) state. Quality, on the other hand becomes more dynamic as you
climb the moral ladder, so there's no static goal, no capital Truth, just

> Well you can say Objectivity" and I won't argue. I really like
> "resonable" better here. Language is basically metaphorical so there's no
> ridgid differance, but I usially associate "You're not being objective!"
> w/ old Dr. Lab-rat in his labratory and "Be reasonable!" w/ Prof.
> Knows-a-lot in the Phil. classroom.

Sounds reasonable... :)

> What does "reason" mean? Well, I always try to consider words in
> use (Wittgenstein: The meaning of a word is in its use.). So what does it
> mean if I say to you, "Damn it, Magnus, you're not being reasonable!" Or
> if went walking down the street dressed all in red and proclaiming at the
> top of my voic that I am a ketchup bottle, then you might say, "Why, he's
> lost all reason."

Fair examples, but there's more of those. Reasonable is also the word used
by the father of a young pregnant daughter, he says: "Be reasonable pumpkin,
you can't possibly keep the baby." It was also the word Einstein (could have)
said to Bohr when they argued about quantum mechanics.

> Yes reason is a common ground.
> It's a social norm. It's what allows us to get along w/ and
> understand one-another. Thus it's ethical! Reason is a social value. If
> you're not being reasonable then you're not doing something that is
> socialy/moraly expected of you.

I might see a difference here after all. I think that you think that being
reasonable includes the possibility of change. Being reasonable today is
not the same as it was being reasonable a hundred years ago, right? But
it was still reason that got us from reason-1898 to reason-1998.

I don't include the possibility of change in reason. Why? Just because
I think that the first split of ultimate reality is change vs. non-change,
dynamic vs. static, becoming vs. existing. Once that split is made, you
can't mix them up again. I think that reason is a set of socially accepted,
(dependent on social patterns), intellectual SPoVs.

Can you accept this difference?

> No we don't have to abandon objectivity. Just to realize that *the
> objective observer* is a role that one is (moraly) required to play in
> appropriat social situations (ie in the lab). Objectivity is a value. (But
> the value comes first.) It is *A* value, and is only appropriat in
> certain situations. Kant (and countless others -- almost everybody)
> assumed that "experience" ment "scientific exp." In other words, what we
> do on the street is the same as what Dr Labrat does in his lab, only he
> does it better and w/ more pecision -- thus the ideal of Sherlock Holmes,
> the guy who "observes" at all times. I hope we can see by now that this is
> utter B.S. Objectivity is a role; appropreat here, droped there.
> (This is why I said that reason can, of course have a broader
> meaning, but meaning is poetic and fluid anyway.)

This looks like an argument in favour of Bo's SAIOM (SOM As Intellect Of
MoQ). You say that objectivity is a value, and I agree, it's intellectual
value. Then you say that reason has a broader meaning, I interpret this
as I did above, that you include a possibility of change in reason, but
not in objectivity.

I'm not saying that this is bad or anything, but it would do wonders
for our mutual understanding if we could pin this down.

> On way to define "morality" is "common ground." It's what
> prescripts social situations by delineating thae appropriat and the in
> appropriat. It's what makes life and social interaction semi-predictable.
> It does this by (basically) allowing us to put ourselves in another's
> place. This I call "reciprocity." (A hell of a lot more to be said here!)

Isn't this basically social value?

> You live in a very sick world, my friend.
> Of course that's not what I'm working towards. And it has nothing
> to do w/ being subjective. Answerins a question can be objective (Now I've
> said before, objectivity is an ideal; nobody's ever 100% objective, but so
> what?). I'll see if I can justify my qusetion-oriented approch to you,
> but not here and now. That's a topic that surly deserves a posting of its
> own, eh?

Sure, I'll brace myself for an interrogative post ad absurdum. :)
By the way, I guess you heard it before but I don't think objectivity is
an ideal. Nobody's ever 100% objective, of course not, first of all it's
impossible according to quantum mechanics. Second, it's predictable and

> > I'm looking for common grounds here, I hope it shows through. It's not
> > objectivity but at least we're all talking english.
> I bet there's more social conventions/moreas than that at work
> here. One thing I learned from Erving Goffman: inturuptions are very
> important. Always pay atention to interuptions/disruptions because they
> indicate that something was *supposed* to happen but didn't (ie the
> situation was, to some extent, prescripted). Let your imagination go. What
> could happen here that would totaly, bloody throw everything off-track?

What did you have in mind? That I'm using reason trying to show that
(my version of) reason is inadequate?

> You cannot escape our common ground!! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (evil,
> meglomaniacal laughter)

You mean our inorganic, biological, social and intellectual SPoVs? :)


"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
				N. Peart - Rush

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST