| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Dean" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2004 03:04:03 AM |
| Object: |
All those New Age Books |
I suppose it keeps bookshop staff in work, but I am amused at the number of
books that come out each year under the general heading of New Age/Self
Impovement that never seem to last more than one printing. Mystical healing,
being a dynamic business genius, losing weight without trying, finding that
special someone etc etc. If these books were worth more than a peanut they'd
be reprinted over and over - like Grays' Anatomy or the Oxford Dictionary,
or even the street directory !
Subjects like Quantum Psychology ( !!?? ) and Alien Spacecraft Engineering
would revolutionise modern science in many areas if they had a whiff of
truth to them, but surprise surprise, they are actually written by some
drunken hack trying to repay their gambling debts or something. I think most
people know this but I still cant explain why a fresh crop of crap is given
prime space in bookshops every year.
Perhaps there really is " One born every minute ".
Dean.
( This has got nothing to do with Phil Ossofey )
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 03:31:17 AM |
|
|
Dean wrote:
I suppose it keeps bookshop staff in work, but I am amused at the number of
books that come out each year under the general heading of New Age/Self
Impovement that never seem to last more than one printing. Mystical healing,
being a dynamic business genius, losing weight without trying, finding that
special someone etc etc. If these books were worth more than a peanut they'd
be reprinted over and over - like Grays' Anatomy or the Oxford Dictionary,
or even the street directory !
Subjects like Quantum Psychology ( !!?? ) and Alien Spacecraft Engineering
would revolutionise modern science in many areas if they had a whiff of
truth to them, but surprise surprise, they are actually written by some
drunken hack trying to repay their gambling debts or something. I think most
people know this but I still cant explain why a fresh crop of crap is given
prime space in bookshops every year.
Perhaps there really is " One born every minute ".
Dean.
( This has got nothing to do with Phil Ossofey )
Actually it does.
One of the holy grails of modern philosophy
is the production of the "Principals of Information".
This analogous to the "Principles of Physics". The
"Principals of Information" is not extant, but several
clues exist. One clue is that it seems that valuable
information always comes with a context of
garbage information. Your "New Age" books may be this year's
necessary garbage.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
We measure things. We spend countless dull hours measuring the
swing of a pendulum, the heat of an acid, the twitch of a muscle.
But only with these measurements in hand can we begin our
dialogue with the Cosmos. -- Anonymous
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 04:25:35 AM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick"
One of the holy grails of modern philosophy
is the production of the "Principals of Information".
This analogous to the "Principles of Physics".
Now thats interesting. This sounds like early attempts to explain vision
starting out with the idea that the eyes sent out special rays to see with.
This idea is of course wrong, but at least they regarded the eye as an organ
of vision that responded to rays. In fact it would be difficult or
impossible to construct a system of arguments to explain something that was
100% wrong in all its assertions. Thinking of it, most of the early
explanations of the natural world had some truth in them. The Earth is made
of stone, fire, air and water. There's just a few more ingredients as well !
Dean.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 04:38:59 AM |
|
|
Dean wrote:
"Sir Frederick"
One of the holy grails of modern philosophy
is the production of the "Principals of Information".
This analogous to the "Principles of Physics".
Now thats interesting. This sounds like early attempts to explain vision
starting out with the idea that the eyes sent out special rays to see with.
This idea is of course wrong, but at least they regarded the eye as an organ
of vision that responded to rays. In fact it would be difficult or
impossible to construct a system of arguments to explain something that was
100% wrong in all its assertions. Thinking of it, most of the early
explanations of the natural world had some truth in them. The Earth is made
of stone, fire, air and water. There's just a few more ingredients as well !
Dean.
I wish spelling checkers were context sensitive!
(Principles" not "Principals")
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
We measure things. We spend countless dull hours measuring the
swing of a pendulum, the heat of an acid, the twitch of a muscle.
But only with these measurements in hand can we begin our
dialogue with the Cosmos. -- Anonymous
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 08:12:37 AM |
|
|
I wish spelling checkers were context sensitive!
(Principles" not "Principals")
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Ah yes, the Principal is your 'Pal'...which they never are !
Dean.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xs Lover" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 04:34:59 AM |
|
|
In article <clq95j$m0m$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
"Dean" <dbd@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
I suppose it keeps bookshop staff in work, but I am amused at the number of
books that come out each year under the general heading of New Age/Self
Impovement that never seem to last more than one printing. Mystical healing,
being a dynamic business genius, losing weight without trying, finding that
special someone etc etc. If these books were worth more than a peanut they'd
be reprinted over and over - like Grays' Anatomy or the Oxford Dictionary,
or even the street directory !
Your observations conform to the notion of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
These book subjects suggest that people are interested in good health,
success, being thin and combating loneliness. These do seem to be basic
human needs whereas quantum psychology might be considered at the other
end of the pyramid.
Subjects like Quantum Psychology ( !!?? ) and Alien Spacecraft Engineering
would revolutionise modern science in many areas if they had a whiff of
truth to them, but surprise surprise, they are actually written by some
drunken hack trying to repay their gambling debts or something. I think most
people know this but I still cant explain why a fresh crop of crap is given
prime space in bookshops every year.
Perhaps there really is " One born every minute ".
Dean.
( This has got nothing to do with Phil Ossofey )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
28 Oct 2004 12:49:26 PM |
|
|
"X's Lover" <together@hell.com> wrote in message
news:together-F5FF55.05345928102004@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <clq95j$m0m$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
"Dean" <dbd@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
I suppose it keeps bookshop staff in work, but I am amused at the number of
books that come out each year under the general heading of New Age/Self
Impovement that never seem to last more than one printing. Mystical healing,
being a dynamic business genius, losing weight without trying, finding that
special someone etc etc. If these books were worth more than a peanut they'd
be reprinted over and over - like Grays' Anatomy or the Oxford Dictionary,
or even the street directory !
Your observations conform to the notion of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
These book subjects suggest that people are interested in good health,
success, being thin and combating loneliness. These do seem to be basic
human needs whereas quantum psychology might be considered at the other
end of the pyramid.
Subjects like Quantum Psychology ( !!?? ) and Alien Spacecraft Engineering
would revolutionise modern science in many areas if they had a whiff of
truth to them, but surprise surprise, they are actually written by some
drunken hack trying to repay their gambling debts or something. I think most
people know this but I still cant explain why a fresh crop of crap is given
prime space in bookshops every year.
It is sometimes suggested that we distinguish offending from harming.
But surely it is implausible to think that the giving of offense is never harmful
to the offended party. People may be deeply offended at witnessing what they
regard as immoral or obscene acts and behavior. A deeply religious person may be
significantly pained by seeing or hearing about what he regards as a sacrilegious
speech or play. Virtually anyone in contemporary Western societies would be
disgusted by public defecation. In at least some such cases, the offense given
can be not only upsetting but can induce rage, affect health, and perhaps even
alter the course of a person's life, e.g., as when someone makes it her or his
life work to stamp out pornography.
Can the claim to liberty be reconciled with the claim to be safe from constant
offense? A first step at reconciliation would involve distinguishing easily
avoidable from unavoidable offensive acts. If the act or behavior that is
regarded as offensive can be avoided with a minimum of effort, it is not
unreasonable to expect those who object to make the minimal effort required.
Surely, liberty is of great enough value to outweigh the minimal effort required
to avoid offense. Thus, having sexual relations on the subway during rush hour
may be legally prohibited. Sex between the proverbial consenting adults in
private should be beyond the scope of the law. Anyone should be free to watch a
pornographic movie if they so wish but such freedom should not extend to lurid
billboard advertisements that passers-by cannot help but witness.
How exactly is the boundary between the avoidable and the unavoidable to be
drawn. It is doubtful if any precise formula can be constructed that then can be
applied to cases in a mechanical fashion. In practice, the boundary should be
established by democratically enacted statute, as applied by the judiciary.
However, there are limits on how far democracy may go here. These limits are set
by the value of liberty itself. In view of the importance of individual liberty,
the burden of proof is on those who would limit it to show at least: (a) that the
allegedly offensive behavior cannot be easily avoided; (b) that it is not
feasible to provide a restricted area where the behavior in question need not be
witnessed by the general public; (c) that the behavior is widely regarded as
deeply offensive in the community as a whole; and (d) that the allegedly
offensive behavior is not the expression of an ideology or ideal that ought to be
protected under the heading of free speech. We also should remember that since
any act may offend someone, we cannot prohibit all offensive behavior without
surrendering liberty entirely.
In practice, the courts often have appealed to the standard of what the community
in general finds offensive, obscene, or revolting. The trick, which has not yet
been performed satisfactorily, is to characterize the relevant community
properly. Presumably, one should not define the community so narrowly that the
showing of the very same movie is allowed in one and prohibited in the other of
two neighboring suburbs. Yet one might not want to define the community so
broadly that what is permissible on 42nd Street in New York City must also be
permissible in an Amish community.
It is reasonable to conclude that the guidelines sketched above should be
interpreted as placing a heavy burden of proof on those who would restrict
liberty to minimize offense. This is a moral judgment concerning the importance
of liberty that we hope is warranted in view of the arguments for liberty in
Chapter Three, as developed in later sections of this chapter.
The Individual & the Poliical Order
An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
-Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
Publishers and companies have reputations and influences that can restrain them
somewhat. Some companies wouldn't put out lies like others without much
criticism.
Perhaps there really is " One born every minute ".
As long as the suckas' don't get physically harmed from the ***** a judge is
not likely to tamper with free speech rights for what can be avoided. Didn't they
try and bust Ozzy when some kids played his "suicide solution" song at their
suicide. Got thrown out of court.
Dean.
( This has got nothing to do with Phil Ossofey )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xs Lover" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
29 Oct 2004 12:17:21 PM |
|
|
In article <aaednR68n_ZUrBzcRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is reasonable to conclude that the guidelines sketched above should be
interpreted as placing a heavy burden of proof on those who would restrict
liberty to minimize offense. This is a moral judgment concerning the
importance
of liberty that we hope is warranted in view of the arguments for liberty in
Chapter Three, as developed in later sections of this chapter.
This requires that we define "what is offense?" adn if there is any
harm. Is offense merely a cognitive process? Is offense an emotional
response with physiological symptoms? Is such offense with frequency and
intensity enough to be considered harmful.
For example, if someone views X as morally repugnant and to the point of
experiencing physiological symptoms of disgust, nausea and vomitting is
there now reason to move something from the category of offensive to
that of harmful.
Is prolonged exposure to that which one finds offensive where
physiological and emotional reactions are over time and harmful and
their worthy of being limited in a free society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
30 Oct 2004 01:37:23 PM |
|
|
"X's Lover" <together@hell.com> wrote in message
news:together-D1EFA4.13172129102004@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <aaednR68n_ZUrBzcRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is reasonable to conclude that the guidelines sketched above should be
interpreted as placing a heavy burden of proof on those who would restrict
liberty to minimize offense. This is a moral judgment concerning the
importance
of liberty that we hope is warranted in view of the arguments for liberty in
Chapter Three, as developed in later sections of this chapter.
This requires that we define "what is offense?" adn if there is any
harm. Is offense merely a cognitive process? Is offense an emotional
response with physiological symptoms? Is such offense with frequency and
intensity enough to be considered harmful.
For example, if someone views X as morally repugnant and to the point of
experiencing physiological symptoms of disgust, nausea and vomitting is
there now reason to move something from the category of offensive to
that of harmful.
Is prolonged exposure to that which one finds offensive where
physiological and emotional reactions are over time and harmful and
their worthy of being limited in a free society.
That depends upon prior cases that have been won and lost and the discretion of
the judge ruling the case. The guiding principle from the material you snipped
out is that the offense be "easily avoidable" and if not a judge can decide and
then an appeal be made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: All those New Age Books |
30 Oct 2004 10:37:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:37:23 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"X's Lover" <together@hell.com> wrote in message
news:together-D1EFA4.13172129102004@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <aaednR68n_ZUrBzcRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is reasonable to conclude that the guidelines sketched above should be
interpreted as placing a heavy burden of proof on those who would restrict
liberty to minimize offense. This is a moral judgment concerning the
importance
of liberty that we hope is warranted in view of the arguments for liberty in
Chapter Three, as developed in later sections of this chapter.
This requires that we define "what is offense?" adn if there is any
harm. Is offense merely a cognitive process? Is offense an emotional
response with physiological symptoms? Is such offense with frequency and
intensity enough to be considered harmful.
For example, if someone views X as morally repugnant and to the point of
experiencing physiological symptoms of disgust, nausea and vomitting is
there now reason to move something from the category of offensive to
that of harmful.
Is prolonged exposure to that which one finds offensive where
physiological and emotional reactions are over time and harmful and
their worthy of being limited in a free society.
That depends upon prior cases that have been won and lost and the discretion of
the judge ruling the case. The guiding principle from the material you snipped
out is that the offense be "easily avoidable" and if not a judge can decide and
then an appeal be made.
A little old lady complained to the cops that the guy in the
appartment accross from her kept walking around stark naked.
A cop came over , looked and said,"I can't see anything."
The lady said, "Stand on the couch. Stand on the couch."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
