Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Emotions and choice
Message-ID: <2625@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 00:10:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2625
Posted: Tue Aug  6 00:10:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 04:03:32 EDT
References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP>  <591@unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 48

Robert Pease, in his response to Rich Rosen:

> Wether or not you are aware you've made a choice, you  have.  Even  if
> it  is  to  go along with what you have learned in life so far and not
> question it.  Even deciding not to make the choice is a choice.
>
> > (I do agree completely about the possibilities of other choices, but, contrary
> > to the turn this discussion has been taking, one cannot be considered
> > responsible for things like emotions until one is aware of the possibilities
> > of controlling them.)
>
> Again, even if you weren't aware of the possibilities, who else could
> possibly be responsible but you?

As Rich has been trying to point out, there is faulty reasoning here.
[Note:  I'm not just refering to Robert, who I hope won't be too
offended at becoming an example.]  First, Robert seems to be making the
unsupported assumption that there *must* be a choice involved in this
situation.  Secondly, he makes another unsupported assumption that there
*must* be someone responsible.

Neither Rich nor I seem to see the necessity of either assertion.  And
both assertions have been given as a matter of faith, with nothing but
a circular semantic argument or two to support them: arguments that
essentially involve re-defining the words ``choice'' and ``responsibility''.

I can make the argument that I am responsible for EACH and EVERY perception
I have of the world, and of every one of my actions, (even if I ``choose''
to be unaware of them or their implications).  But when I do so I have
just taken the word ``responsible'' and hollowed out all semantic content.
It becomes suitable for incorporation into tautologies and useless
platitudes.

The same thing can be said for re-defining the word ``choice''.  Why,
lets make EVERYTHING a ``choice''.  That would make everyone ``responsible'',
which is just what we set out to prove!  Of course, we've only ``proven''
something in a jargon-laden world of our own imagining.

But once you've done these semantic shenanigans, don't go back and
assume that you've managed to change the nature of the world one bit.
It's a world of partial choices and partial responsibilies, ill-
defined or undefinable, a world that is often unfair and illogical.
Try as you might to capture its workings in boxes of words and theories,
you'll find only a very little of it inside whatever box you may
construct.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall