rws@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) (02/02/90)
[This message arrived in my mailbox 2/7/89, so I would expect voting
to continue for a little longer. Send votes to bobs@houxa.att.com.
-eliot]
This is the first CALL FOR VOTES for the sci.philosophy.objectivism
newsgroup, which is to be unmoderated.
If you are in favor of this group and charter (as defined below),
send me mail with the single line of text:
YES for sci.philosophy.objectivism as proposed.
If you are opposed to the existence of this group with this charter,
send me mail with the single line of text:
NO for sci.philosophy.objectivism as proposed.
I receive mail addressed to r.w.stubblefield@att.com,
bobs@houxa.att.com,
or att!houxa!bobs.
Because of the recent troubles with att gateways, the vote will run
for 28 days. Votes received after 3/2/90 will not be counted.
====================================================================
1. The Name--SPO
Sci--because of the approach participants should use when
contributing to this newsgroup. What is scientific about it is
that conclusions should be drawn by reasoning based on observations of
reality. Neither "Ayn Rand says so" nor "I just feel it's so" should
be used as a premise for a conclusion.
Philosophy--because fundamental principles, at the base of all
other human knowledge, will be the content. All five branches
of philosophy will be discussed.
Objectivism--because most participants will be people who
have already grasped the fact that Ayn Rand has identified a set of
fundamental principles that integrate to make a philosophy. Most
contributors should have actually read the relevant works by Ayn Rand
before making any lengthy comments on a topic. Posters who question
her conclusions are NOT excluded. Rational, reality-based, logical
opponents asking specific questions are welcome.
2. Charter
sci.philosophy.objectivism for those who grasp that philosophy is
a science and are interested in studying Ayn Rand's philosophy
of Objectivism. The primary content is intended to be
reasoned analysis of philosophic principles (and their
applications) based on facts of reality.
This current posting (in total) comprises a longer explanation of the
charter. Note that the word "primarily" allows the contributions
of announcements, publications, classes, club meetings and such as
long as they are interesting to people studying Objectivism. It also
allows the derivative use by honest, polite, serious folks who are not
studying it but may want to learn more about Objectivism.
3. Quality
Several things will help SPO achieve the quality its founders desire.
a) The precise wording of the charter above should be used in Gene
Spafford's list of newsgroups.
b) This notice will be posted monthly.
c) Guidelines that rational people should follow to attenuate noise
of irrational posters will be posted periodically.
d) Style guidelines arrived at within the newsgroup will be
posted periodically.
e) Guidelines for expressing disagreement will be posted periodically.
f) The only action needed by system administrators should be to
prevent the only way someone can initiate (indirect) force; i.e.,
they need to remove USENET privileges of those who fraudently
associate their words with the signatures of others.
DISCLAIMER: the intent of this group is not to represent Objectivism
but to provide a forum for studying it.
RWS 2/2/90
--
Bob Stubblefield att!houxa!bobs 201-949-2846
r.w.stubblefield@ATT.COMxanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/09/90)
I was informed when this call was posted that it can be difficult from many points on the net to mail directly to "att.com"; why I don't know, but that routing through sun.com will work. Seems like att.com is a poor place to be using as a vote gathering site if that be true. I tried this, and it hasn't bounced yet: bobs%houxa.att.com@sun.com but with a site like att.com, with poor connectivity and mail routing (by its own choice, history reminds us), we are sure to see lots of postings saying: "my mail vote bounced, I vote NO", which is a pity, since it will cut down on the overwhelming mandate not to trash out "sci." with yet another non-research, discussion-oriented group. Get those NO votes rolling in! If ever there were an occasion when email needed a flood algorithm, this is surely the time! Don't let your complete indifference as to whether the proponents of this fiasco ever draw another breath keep you from administering the rap upside the head with a brick that you know in your heart they deserve! [Ah, the genteel art of political persuasion!] -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies. Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
wcs) (02/10/90)
I've mailed in my NO vote - though I would support talk.philosophy.objectivism (or talk.religion.objectivism :-) <- some of you have a sense of humor.) > Sci--because of the approach participants should use when > contributing to this newsgroup. What is scientific about it is > that conclusions should be drawn by reasoning based on observations of > reality. Neither "Ayn Rand says so" nor "I just feel it's so" should > be used as a premise for a conclusion. Is it really because of the approach that should be used, or is it really because Objectivists BELIEVE their beliefs to be Science? Nice as it is to KNOW that your senses and reason map accurately to the "real" world (which are probably the fundamental axioms of objectivism), all of the Objectivist attempts at epistemology come down to the assumption, or desire, or faith, that these are true. While I do not accept the prejudices or premises of Zen, its observations of human nature are rather devastating to the Objectivist premises. In particular, the view that reason is often a tool used to rationalize the opinions that people want to hold for other reasons rather than a prime mover of conscious thought applies well to much Objectivist writing, and especially to Ayn Rand's aesthetics and passions, and to the infighting and "excommunication" that's gone on since the early 60s. Bill Stewart -- # Bill Stewart AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs # ho95c has gone the way of all VAX/785s, so I'm now on erebus.att.com