[FoRK] Lion, rationality, reason, and seriousness

Albert S. <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com> on Mon May 7 10:57:53 PDT 2007

Obviously this one has not been absorbed into the
machine yet. Every once in awhile one slips through
the cracks. Has anyone contacted the proper
authorities yet, or do I have to do everything?

Cheers,
Albert

P.S. More levity Kimbro.

--- Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

> 
> On May 7, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Lion Kimbro wrote:
> 
> >  The way I look at it, we *have* to see "passion,"
> desire,  
> > imagination,
> >  interest, love, joy, care, inspiration, emotion,
> aesthetic, the  
> > sensation
> >  of "being free," as the motivating force driving
> reason &  
> > rationality.
> >
> >  It's fundamentally **impossible** for "Reason"
> itself to be the  
> > motivator
> >  for reason.  At best, we could romanticize, and
> **imagine** that  
> > Reason
> >  were a person, (perhaps seeing Harry Seldon
> sitting atop his  
> > computronium
> >  planet,) and ask ourselves, "Well, WWRD?  (What
> would Reason Do?)",
> >  and reason from that inspiration.
> 
> So, to save the notion of reason from
> (simultaneously) a circular  
> definition *and* romanticization, we have to define
> it  in  
>
romanticized-warm-fuzzy-subjective-impossible-to-quantify
> terms?
> 
> Does this *really* make sense to you?
> 
> How about this:  start with a function;  call it
> "the utility  
> function..."
> 
> 
> jb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> 


More information about the FoRK mailing list