RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:02:39 -0600

At 08:49 PM 9/29/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>This seems like it should already have been said by
>someone, but in case it has not: I think that for most
>people, instincts are not rational because, though
>the result may well be in accord with these principles,
>the way in which that result is reached is not. Except,
>of course, in the trivial sense that objective reality
>accords with logic -- that is, instincts in no way rely
>*explicitly* on the principles, as rational thinking, for
>instance, does. And that's what "rational" is usually
>taken to mean.

That's the first definition of rationality in my dictionary.
The 2nd definition does not mention how the result is reached.
(I didn't leave out part of the definition to make my
case :)

In contradistinction:

At 02:20 PM 9/29/97 -0400, Paul Prestopnik wrote:
>suggest : ratiocinative

This word seems to be a variation of ratiocinate which is
to think logically. So the method is inherent in the word
and I wouldn't use it to describe behavior that was generated
in some other way.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Kumo Software Corp.