Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words

["Dan Fiscus" <***>]

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