Unless I’m much mistaken, this is the first edition of Commensal since No. 83, August 1993. Hence we’ll imaginatively enumerate this one No. 84. Since it’s been a while, I’ll assume that everyone’s lost interest in the discussions in the last newsletter & we’ll start from scratch. While we’re doing so, there’s the opportunity to re-title the Newsletter if anyone can think of anything radical. Also, if we have any arty types in our midst who have ideas for making the newsletter look more visually attractive, please submit your suggestions. I have a reasonably competent computer system, together with flatbed scanner & decent printer, so may be able to take advantage of them.
Anyway, why am I writing this attenuated newsletter ? Well, Rex Smith seems to have gone the way of all SIGSecs and retired. I am not privy to the details so will not speculate here. Enough to wish him well, especially if he’s listening in ! So, thinking that it is a shame that any organisation that promotes intelligence should be bereft of a Philosophical Discussion Group I’ve volunteered to get the thing going again. The rest of you have had long enough to step forward, and in default thereof, you’ve got me.
Do I have any qualifications for such an august responsibility ? Well, I have no formal philosophical training. I’ve a mathematics degree and work in the City in the computer department of a Bank. Not much going for me so far ! I’ve had a stint editing the UK newsletter of ISPE (the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) which might be a rival of Mensa if it wasn’t utterly dwarfed by it ! I believe I have a reasonably coherent writing style and enjoy a good argument. I’ve also gone to the trouble of documenting my world view in propositional format and have read a bit here and there. My philosophical inclination is towards a no nonsense empiricism with a vigorous swish of Occam’s razor. I believe one’s philosophy should invade all one’s activities and that there should be no theoretical inconsistencies in one’s belief patterns that one has the ability to discover. No doubt there should be no discord between one’s beliefs and actions, but legislating for this is a waste of effort and a temptation to believe what is comfortable.
Why do we need a Philosophical Discussion Group ? After all, there are alternatives for popular philosophy. For instance, there’s the relatively new journal Philosophy Now; which aims at the reflective person in the street. There are heavier philosophical journals such as Philosophy which still pretend to be non-technical; for those with special interests, there are multi-disciplinary offerings such as the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which even has a moderated discussion group on the Internet, namely JCS On-line.
I think a Mensa discussion group fills a gap because thereby each of us can have his or her say without an academic referee rejecting our offerings as insufficiently scholarly. However, the fact that we have no academic hoops to jump through shouldn’t be taken as licence to submit any old tosh. I reserve the right to bounce any submission that seems positively barking, or is unduly offensive. Since this could be a subjective judgement, any volunteers to staff the court of second opinion ?
I’ve invented the paragraph below for inclusion in the SIGs list. Any suggestions for revision gratefully received. Remember the word limit is 50.
The Philosophical Discussion Group (W) : provides a forum, via its newsletter Commensal, for debate on any issue from a philosophical perspective. Members need not be expert in any particular philosophical system, nor be devotees of any particular philosopher, but must desire, in any domain of enquiry, to get to the root of the matter.
This newsletter must start somewhere, but it won’t start with an article by me unless there’s a deafening silence. I’m told there are 80 of you still on the books waiting patiently, so here’s your big chance to release those pent-up thought processes ... we need feedback, new ideas and, particularly, original articles. I suggest the closing date for submissions for the next edition should be 15 March 1997. We will need fairly frequent newsletters if we’re not to lose the thread of the discussion. Not to be over ambitious, I’ll aim for bi-monthly newsletters for time being, but will attempt to issue them more frequently if debate hots up.
What are my philosophical interests ? Well, primarily such dry as dust topics as epistemology, the nature of rationality & of reasonable belief, and the theory of rational decision under uncertainty. Secondly, metaphysics - including consciousness studies and whether we need posit any immaterial entities such as minds, souls or spirits; whether or not science is approaching a complete account of reality; whether para-this and para-that have anything going for them; and the philosophy of science & of religion. Finally, the foundations of ethical theories, including the moral status of animals both as an important issue in its own right and for the light it sheds on other moral theories.
Well, that’s enough for a start. I greatly look forward to hearing from you all. Please type your submissions if at all possible so that I can scan them in. Anyone on the Internet should please use e-mail. However, if you have no access to high tech devices, please hand write as neatly as you can. Don’t be discouraged from communicating !
Best wishes,
Theo Todman