[MD] Moving On

[Ian]

Wow, thanks for the quick response Dan. Harris is one of those criticized by Haidt. I was actually talking about his later work "Righteous Mind"

His language in a popular targetted book is indeed simplistic, but I see more depth.

In your main point - I guess I have to ask you, how does a person who believes (feels) they know distinguish between doing and trying to do ?

Ian
Sent from my iPhone

On 6 May 2012, at 23:44, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Ian <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan, you're right of course,
> 
> Hi Ian
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
>> Ian:
>> But clearly I meant knowing - in a sense we cannot necessarily rationalize - so we could be wrong , but it shouldn't stop us trying. And yes, I agreed with Marsha's "do" - but I guess "try to do" is probably what I/we meant. Do try. (I is we, anyway)
> 
> Dan:
> Well, I did not understand Marsha saying try to do... as I stated, she
> seemed adamant about doing. But perhaps she's better qualified to
> answer this than am I. Myself, I do not try to write... I write. Or I
> don't. Writing is better.
> 
> My point (and Yoda's) is there is no such thing as try to do. A person
> either does or doesn't. So when you say we should try to do better, I
> see you espousing nonsense. We either do better or we don't... there
> is no try.
> 
> I rather hoped you might seek to enlighten me how just how a person
> goes about trying to do better when the outcome of our doing is
> unknown. Experience Dynamically unfolds in ways unforeseen and
> un-looked for. Are you talking about probabilities? And if so, on what
> do you judge the likelihood of this happening instead of that?
> 
> Ian:
> see Jonathan Haidt.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> "Haidt has been criticized at times for being both simplistic and too
> lenient toward moral beliefs that have historically led to grave
> injustices. In a response to Haidt's suggestion that atheists "pollute
> the scientific study of religion," author Sam Harris writes, "Even if
> Haidt's reading of the literature on morality were correct, and all
> this manufactured bewilderment proves to be useful in getting certain
> people to donate time, money, and blood to their neighbors—so what? Is
> science now in the business of nurturing useful delusions? Surely we
> can grow in altruism, and refine our ethical intuitions, and even
> explore the furthest reaches of human happiness, without lying to
> ourselves about the nature of the universe"
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt]
> 
> Not sure what there is to see?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 
> http://www.danglover.com
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html