Re: world-soul, Fechner

["Daniel A. Fiscus" <***>]

John,

Not sure what you area asking - yes or no about
about what?

Dan

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, John M wrote:

> 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
>