Mindy Newton

Thanks for all that information. I don't see what appeals to you in this. It seems like a bit of jargon stretched over a lot of psychologising. "Metacontext" is the "attitude" one has toward accepting or rejecting a theory? For myself, I'm going to continue using "context" in the standard way. But at least now I'll know what people are talking about when they refer to "pancritical rationalism," thanks to you. = Mindy

It's not clear to me, Mindy, why I need morality to figure that out... --Brant When you figure that out, you are practicing ethics. Assuming you are thorough in considering long-term and short-term consequences, in thinking about collateral effects, etc., you simply are being moral. That's it. The reason we write it out as a "code" is that there are plenty of choices and decisions out there that are hard to figure out. Principles of moral conduct, or a hierarchy of reasoned values to consult makes it easier to know what you'd choose if you were omniscient. = Mindy

You said it, Jonathan. = Mindy

A universal "more"? I suppose you mean a universal mos. Yes, thank you, that's what I should have written. = Mindy

So much for a universal code against murder. I suppose the general rule (if there is one) is don't murder your closest kin. And even that rule is violated. Killing the Other has always been permitted to some degree. Ba'al Chatzaf The point, the logical point, is that it is always outlawed to kill certain other people, even if who may and who may not be killed is different in each society. We call it "murder" and recognize it as a universal more. = Mindy

Paul, I'm lost in space. I don't know if it's metacontextual space, subcontextual space, or what, but I am, indeed, lost. Could you define these terms? (I know what context means.:-)) = Mindy

That's the propagandist's view, Brant. Forget that altogether and look at it as a set of guidelines for predicting the best outcome--for you--for all your choices and decisions. It keeps you from working against yourself, unintentionally. It lets you know that the long-term consequences won't be bad ones, even though the short-term ones seem good. It is practical and necessary because we aren't omniscient. =Mindy

What about -suttee- in India? Or so-called honor slayings in Muslim Countries? Then there is the matter of killing in self defense. Killing other folks is not universally condemned. Neither is seizing property. The IRS does it all the time, for example. Laws against incest are not universal either. Until I see some strong arguments I am staying with the position that morality is largely conventional and the only upper bound to moral bindings is that a moral code should be practiced without killing the practicioner or guaranteeing the extinction of the community. In this regard, objective consideration impinges on morality. Ba'al Chatzaf I didn't say "killing" but rather "murder." That means every society has a law against killing certain others, though it be defined in different ways. Also, doesn't it make sense to you that "moral" is a condition akin to "health" that man must discover the rules of? = Mindy

Of course they are not like physical laws. Nothing in philosophy is. If not "physical laws" would just be "laws." However, morality refers to the human organism which is basically immutable through cultures. That's why suicide bombings are objectively evil and so is the philosophy (religion) they rode in on. --Brant In point of fact, moral codes differ from society to society, especially moral codes pertaining to sexual behavior. I am not aware of any universal code of morality that all humans feel or are in fact bound by. Most morality is conventional, not derived from the nature of reality. Ba'al Chatzaf About a universal rule, I believe rules against murder are universal. Of course, what is and isn't "murder" varies, but some taboo against killing others, so I have read, is present in all cultures. I like Rand's comparison of morality to "health." It goes a very long way to modelling the objectivity of morality. Instead of being about what's contained within our skin (health), morality pertains to how we relate to the rest of the world. We must act to survive. Random behavior is dangerous, when it isn't wasteful. Men have to choose what to do. We can't get along on appetite and fear. Morality is the means-end description of behaving so as to flourish if you're a homo sapiens. Once you set the context for needing guides for behavior, the objectivity of morality isn't hard to prove. = Mindy

Yes, I suppose that would be unnerving for someone from Tucson! = Mindy

Julian, when you wrote, "For example, having regular meals with parents served to moderate the effects of the "risky" DRD2 gene, whereas not having those meals amplified the aggression," you were assigning a causal role to dining habits, which was not, I'll go out on a limb to say, what the research showed, and, hopefully, not what the article said. Someone else here already re-interpreted that as meaning that those subjects were the ones with a stable home-life. That's very probably right. It's important not only to avoid repeating something as if it made stronger claims than it did, but to avoid drawing such conclusions yourself, unawares. At the risk of sounding preachy: Heads up! = Mindy

How do you know these things, GS? = Mindy

Well, here I am playing in my own play-pen again. For parents: Bedtime goes more smoothly if it is routinized. No-one in their right mind would have their child say the classic Christian bed-time prayer, not only for its superstitious associations, but because it mentions death. What a way to settle down and get ready to have the light turned off... "If I should die before I wake..." Even as a child, kneeling with my sisters and repeating this prayer, I thought to myself that it was the wrong thing to be thinking about! So, when my daughter came to be of an age to be able to understand such things, I worked on a poem for her to say before sleep. There are, I believe, both philosophical and psychological factors to letting go of the day and letting oneself go to sleep. I tried to address those in my piece. Since there is a parenting contingent here, it might be of interest to those who have young children. "Lay me down to sleep" Now I lay me down to sleep, This day is done, and mine to keep. Tomorrow is another day, For adventure, work, and play, But now I'll rest, so I may be, The best, tomorrow, I can be. Turn out the lights, prepare my bed, For I've become a sleepy-head. Soft's my pillow, snug my nest, Dreamland is my only quest, There to wander, peacefully, Until tomorrow comes for me. = Mindy

Sounds good, I'll look for it. I have one to suggest. It's titled, "Rain." Several versions have been filmed. I know of the one with Joan Crawford. This is like no movie I've ever seen before or after. It is philosophical, psychological, and very artistic. As for story-telling, it "goes all the way." If only one in a thousand movies lived up to this one!! If anyone looks it up, let me know what you thought of it. = Mindy

Emotional abuse of children should not be ignored. It is much harder to discover, and to prove, but it is a legitimate concern of the justice system. = Mindy

As a parent, I can verify that media reports and peer gossip can indeed create significant fears in children. You don't need to assume this girl had an anxiety disorder. I think the article did a great job in highlighting the "religious and superstitious" culture of India, and the broad public acceptance of media hype, as contributing to the panic that evidently took place there. I'm sure India wasn't the only place that happened, either. In the U.S., especially after 9-11, cataclysm and personal vulnerability are a real part of how children, and many people, view the world. = Mindy

I trust "Damn Skippy" is something good? :-) =Mindy

Rich, I like this shift in focus. Romanticism is a state of mind regardless of how we try to define it and philosophize about it. Romanticism is viewing the world through the lens of appreciation. It does not deny realism. It emphasizes those things that have positive meaning to us by focusing on an aesthetic appreciation of that meaning. This appreciation, and making it real by transforming it into action for one's lover, is what Ted talked about earlier. Approaching reality with an aesthetic appreciation of the positive meaning people and things have for us contributes in important ways to how happy we end up. This is not to say we don't recognize, acknowledge and process the more mundane or negative aspects of life. We do. We just don't dwell on them. It's a shift in focus, a shift in the relation of figure and ground, not a denial of reality. The mundane and negative become a backdrop that emphasizes and helps define the value of the positive that we are focused on. It's a state of mind that embodies a commitment to happiness. Romanticism is just yet another lens, another context, through which to view reality. Reality remains reality but the focus, and the background that helps define what we are focused on, changes. Paul I think part of living and relating romantically is keeping your wildest hopes in sight. If you're not romantic about life, you can't be romantic about a person. If you don't still have plans, or at least goals that would make life fantastic, you can't see your partner as part of something wonderful. If you, yourself are just "slip-sliding away," the whole world will look like a slippery slope to the end. =Mindy

I fell like such a dumbass! That goes double for me!

I'm going to pretend it's not weird to write something here, since no one will know it's been written... I love tongue-twisters, and have always enjoyed Dr. Seuss's tongue-twisting stories. I noticed there is a book advertised here on Seuss, so I thought I'd "expose" my poem about Seuss sounds. Seuss Sounds Seuss sounds, Seuss sounds, A "Cat in the Hat" a day, Children's eyes and ears get round, When Dr. Seuss has his say. Juice sounds when Seuss sounds, Saliva and tongue hunt their way, You'll stutter and mutter, and blush to re-utter, The synched sounds that Seuss sends your way. Soon sound soothed sounds, As sleep steals her slumbering slaves, So, softly! alliterate, litter your litter's late sleep, With sweet Seuss sounds, sooth-say'd. Mindy Newton

Hey Mindy! Got you beat. Just celebrated 25. First for both too. Best, Nick For twenty-five times around the sun, Nick's wife has made his life more fun, And he has made her feel secure, And they have both felt love's allure. Congrats, congrats, congrats! =Mindy

LOL. Well done Mindy. Actually I didn't notice that. All we can know is what we can know. Doesn't take us very far does it lol. Hmm, how can we put this. How about existential reality is always filtered through our mental constructs, which are often changing, relative, and sometimes wrong? Thanks for that! Help me out? I keep coming upon the word, "existential," and am taken aback. I'm tired of stumbling over this word! I'm wondering if sometimes "experiential" is what is meant? (Don't quote me the definitions, I've looked them up. ;-) ) Otherwise, I'm missing a distinction. Take the useage above, "existential reality" which is filtered... If it's supposed to be "experiential reality" or "reality as experienced" then I get it. If it means, "existing reality," I am left wondering why the phrase is used, and not just, "reality." (I'm the first to admit the work of sharpening our conceptual equipment is never done.) =Mindy

Mindy, maybe you don't share my contempt for his endlessly repeated nonsense - but do you think it a bad idea for him at least to try to understand the Objectivist position if he is going to post here? To call a man a fool for his current actions is not to call him evil or irredeemable. Is the point of such a forum as this endless back and forth, or better understanding? And if it is better understanding, then is actually reading Rand such a bad idea? So how about it, GS, have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or haven't you? Ted, no, I certainly don't think it a bad idea, quite the contrary! However, I don't think he needs anyone to inform him of the advisability of doing it. I don't feel contempt for him, though I would if he weren't responsive. If he just kept spouting his Idealist beliefs, and didn't enter into real discussion, I'd join you in your annoyance. To tell you the truth, and at the risk of offending a few people, though I sincerely mean no offence, I think "we" should be able to set him straight efficiently. It's good exercise to engage with sincere people with mistaken beliefs. To tell you the truth, ITOE will create some confusion, in my opinion. Though I think he would forever thank his lucky stars if he learned Obj. philosophy. =Mindy

So are you saying I'm talking about thinking, which I'm then scaling from worse to better, as opposed to identifying two species of thinking, non-critical thinking and critical thinking? Yes, with "disorganized thinking" at the low end and "critical thinking" at the high end. I was distinguishing "critical thinking" as a review, fault-finding process, from thinking itself. Thought itself is creative, in the linguistic sense (and more broadly, I believe.) A review process doesn't aim to be creative. That's the distinction I was making. I understand your three-stage structure. The third is, of course, the easiest to teach. The whole enterprise depends utterly on proper use of concepts. Approximate meanings and reading between the lines and idiosyncratic associations are rampant. It doesn't get you anywhere if you teach well-formed arguments unless people are able to state--and grasp--the actual meaning of the terms, and are able to couch their information in the correct terms, etc. How do you, or do you, address that? I'm now aware that your work is more specific than the 21stCentury project's goal. Are you limiting your efforts to the three steps as given? So, for example, you begin with sharpening student's awareness of the hierarchical structure of concepts, inheritance relations, intersecting and alternative extensions of some terms, etc. And you just rely on the student to possess accurate knowledge of the meanings of his useable vocabulary? What, in outline, is the programme related to no. 2, thought proper? (This is a pet subject for me.) And no. 3 is teaching the patterns of logical and fallacious reasoning. Is there an age group you are specifically aiming at? Is there a time-frame for the learning process? And, if you didn't want to be questioned like this, do say so! =Mindy

I see. Basically, in my terminology, you're just talking about thinking. What I wrote about before was "critical thinking" as a special case of thinking. So I understand your aims better. Your accounts, and those at the web site you referred to, express their goals in terms of what you want your thinkers to be able to do. Do you venture into the fundamental theory of what it is to think? Including distinguishing thought proper from concept-formation, and from formal reasoning? =Mindy