Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words

["John M" <***>]

Dear Dan,
I re-re-read your post and am still perplexed.
Do you say "Yes" or "No"?

John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words


> Tim Gwinn wrote:
> > Thanks, John. Good point. We do want to keep this list focused on Rosen
and
> > topics related to Rosen. :)
>
> Tim and John,
>
> I think that post was related and relevant. One quick reason:
> Rosen talked about a fear of what might happen if his theory
> was used for fabrication, or got into the wrong hands perhaps.
> I have thought that this fear may have been unfounded. Part
> of my hunch is that if his theory touches on the deeply true
> nature of the universe, that truth and knowledge could not in
> the long run lead to bad things happening for humanity. To
> understand life and even to understand understanding itself
> (which his work on modeling and measurement help with) to
> me would be only good, and this knowledge could not be used
> for evil purposes. Mike's post about a world soul gets at this
> more optimistic angle and thus it helped me in my critical
> thinking about Rosen. I don't think we should carry forward
> that same fear Rosen had, or hold back anything for fear that
> others might misuse the knowledge of Rosen complexity. If
> it is true, it will be OK to spread this word.
>
> I for one like to discuss Rosen in the broadest possible way.
> This does justice to the potential wide reach of his work.
>
> Happy weekend,
>
> Dan