So I go into Starbucks today to get some coffee....

[KenP]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

James,
Sorry about that. Hope this clears it up.....

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences....

To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.

[JamesT]

Originally Posted by KenP

To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

[JamesT]

OK. Im in on this now. Here's what I think.

Practical wisdom, or phronesis, is also aimed at truth, but truth in the service of action. It is concerned with what can be otherwise, with things that change. What changes might be thought to cover everything from the generation of peat bogs to the number of hairs on our heads (sadly always changing downwards both numerically and gravitationally). What Aristotle seems to be concerned with, in his analysis of practical wisdom, is things that change and are related to how humans live their lives among other humans. If we take a contemporary example, whether to drop the first atomic bomb or not, clearly there are questions of a technical nature about how to build the bomb and the nature of atomic decay. This is knowledge about things that change, but are not really what Aristotle has in mind when he talks about practical wisdom. Whilst an understanding of the technical feasibility of an atomic bomb is needed, the practically wise person would focus upon understanding the historical, political, military and human situation, determining what should be accomplished in this situation, and deciding what the best way of accomplishing these objectives is. Aristotle claims that only the person who is morally virtuous will be able to be practically wise, because only the morally virtuous person will perceive what really matters in the situation, and be motivated to carry out the appropriate action. Because practical wisdom is in the service of action, about things that change, and because human beings have to choose some actions rather than others, they need to be able to deliberate well about what actions are needed to bring about what is rightly desired; someone who is both morally virtuous and has practical wisdom will perceive and deliberate well, and hence, choose well.

[KenP]

Originally Posted by JamesT

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

That brought moisture to my eyes, dear friend.

After these matters we ought perhaps next to discuss pleasure. For it is thought to be most intimately connected with our human nature, which is the reason why in educating the young we steer them by the rudders of pleasure and pain; it is thought, too, that to enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought has the greatest bearing on virtue of character. For these things extend right through life, with a weight and power of their own in respect both to virtue and to the happy life, since men choose what is pleasant and avoid what is painful; and such things, it will be thought, we should least of all omit to discuss, especially since they admit of much dispute. For some say pleasure is the good, while others, on the contrary, say it is thoroughly bad-some no doubt being persuaded that the facts are so, and others thinking it has a better effect on our life to exhibit pleasure as a bad thing even if it is not; for most people (they think) incline towards it and are the slaves of their pleasures, for which reason they ought to lead them in the opposite direction, since thus they will reach the middle state. But surely this is not correct. For arguments about matters concerned with feelings and actions are less reliable than facts: and so when they clash with the facts of perception they are despised, and discredit the truth as well; if a man who runs down pleasure is once seen to be alming at it, his inclining towards it is thought to imply that it is all worthy of being aimed at; for most people are not good at drawing distinctions. True arguments seem, then, most useful, not only with a view to knowledge, but with a view to life also; for since they harmonize with the facts they are believed, and so they stimulate those who understand them to live according to them.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by JamesT

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

Bloody hell, you are quick.

[h2co-pilot]

Ah Yes. Hell.

The things that make heaven beautiful, and hell ugly, are not objective, observable by everybody, because they aren't material, like a beautiful diamond that everybody would see the same way. They are values made sensually beautiful only to those who have them inside, states of mind. An angel is beautiful because of his or her values, not beautiful to just anybody. Consequently, a person of a hellish state of mind would not be attracted to heaven.

[JamesT]

Ya got me...

Kiss My Arss! Fawrkers!

[JamesT]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

Ah Yes. Hell.

The things that make heaven beautiful, and hell ugly, are not objective, observable by everybody, because they aren't material, like a beautiful diamond that everybody would see the same way. They are values made sensually beautiful only to those who have them inside, states of mind. An angel is beautiful because of his or her values, not beautiful to just anybody. Consequently, a person of a hellish state of mind would not be attracted to heaven.

I am gonna puke!

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by JamesT

Ya got me...

Kiss My Arss! Fawrkers!

You know, I find this whole thing humorous. That got me thinking about what KenP said the other day. He'll argue that acceptance is necessary for humor, it is said by some that humor must involve playfulness, a mirthful attitude, and even love. DRTY said that humor involves a mix of wit and love. Timgco once wrote, The essence of humor is sensibility; warm, tender, fellow-feeling with all forms of existence." That is, its essence is love. It can be, but all that is minimally needed is to accept the fault or deviation. Any other synonym for "acceptance" would also be possible, e.g. humor involves sympathy, optimism, a positive outlook, generosity in thinking,, easy going nature, flexible thinking, humanistic attitude, responsiveness, compassion, kindliness, interest, understanding, magnanimity, charity, liberation, freedom, considerateness. We may similarly say that humor involves forgiveness. We can now laugh at our lovely weeds.

[KenP]

You speak of the good things in life, just as DRTY, Adam and Tim are those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue. Our account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But it makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For the state of mind may exist without producing any good result, as in a man who is asleep or in some other way quite inactive, but the activity cannot; for one who has the activity will of necessity be acting, and acting well. And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life.

[JamesT]

Ken,

All of what you say has merit. I would ask you to consider this before offering any further conclutions.


Erectile dysfunction, sometimes called "impotence," is the repeated inability to get or keep an erection firm enough for sexual intercourse. The word "impotence" may also be used to describe other problems that interfere with sexual intercourse and reproduction, such as lack of sexual desire and problems with ejaculation or orgasm. Using the term erectile dysfunction makes it clear that those other problems are not involved.
Erectile dysfunction, or ED, can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and estimating its incidence difficult. Estimates range from 15 million to 30 million, depending on the definition used. According to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), for every 1,000 men in the United States, 7.7 physician office visits were made for ED in 1985. By 1999, that rate had nearly tripled to 22.3. The increase happened gradually, presumably as treatments such as vacuum devices and injectable drugs became more widely available and discussing erectile function became accepted. Perhaps the most publicized advance was the introduction of the oral drug sildenafil citrate (Viagra) in March 1998. NAMCS data on new drugs show an estimated 2.6 million mentions of Viagra at physician office visits in 1999, and one-third of those mentions occurred during visits for a diagnosis other than ED.
In older men, ED usually has a physical cause, such as disease, injury, or side effects of drugs. Any disorder that causes injury to the nerves or impairs blood flow in the penis has the potential to cause ED. Incidence increases with age: About 5 percent of 40-year-old men and between 15 and 25 percent of 65-year-old men experience ED. But it is not an inevitable part of aging.
ED is treatable at any age, and awareness of this fact has been growing. More men have been seeking help and returning to normal sexual activity because of improved, successful treatments for ED. Urologists, who specialize in problems of the urinary tract, have traditionally treated ED; however, urologists accounted for only 25 percent of Viagra mentions in 1999.

[Hmmm2]

Originally Posted by JamesT

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

Ya think? ()

[DRTYFN]

Originally Posted by JamesT

I am gonna puke!

I did.

[Bully13]

Originally Posted by DRTYFN

I did.

Your thoughts betray you. Let me expand on this...

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.