Jake wrote:
>In a message dated 2/16/99 3:42:33 PM Central Standard Time,
>richard@brodietech.com writes:
>
><<First of all I want you to know that I like you. I appreciate your
>willingness to show yourself honestly in front of the group. Thank you.
>
>Now a poke at you.
>
>How many minutes does your philosophy of rational criticism allow you to
>consider something before deciding that it is worthless? >>
>
>Oh man. Well, I guess if I dish it out, I gotta take the dishing back.
>Seriously though, I think you take my "arrogance" for more than it is
worth.
>I imagine you have me painted as some really dogmatic logic nazi. If it
makes
>you more comfortable in dealing with me, so be it, I can't whine or say
that I
>discouraged it.
>
>"Arrogance" is for my growing annoyance at too much intellectual PC
behavior:
>where everybody gets to have "their own truths" and "their own realities";
any
>assertions are considered equal to any other assertions; and any attempt to
>rationally criticize somebody else's idea is seen as an act of oppression
and
>unenlightenment.
>
>And while I am very interested in "memes" and any future "memetics" that
may
>develop, I have sensed that some fascinated with this metaphor are more
>interested in the spread of ideas, and in spreading their own ideas, than
they
>are in assessing these ideas for real meaning and the actual value of these
>meanings. And while <tolerance> is a healthy thing to cultivate in
>moderation, and it certainly does have a tendency to lubricate the spread
of
>ideas, something that I know fascinates the readership here, there is a
point
>where it becomes unhealthy especially when valued more than rational
thought.
>
>>> If it's not limited to a few then I would encourage you to chew on what
>Reed said for a week or so and see if you can make some sense of it.<<
>
>Despite the impairments that rationality has imposed on my thinking
processes,
>and the enlightenment that I lack due to its crippling effects, I can still
>intutively grasp at what Reed has said. I don't think that it will take me
a
>week. Even in my mentally impaired - oops I mean challenged - state, I
think
>I vaguely understood it in the first read, and the light started to shine
>dimly on the 25th read. That took a while, since I have to say the words
out
>loud slowly.
>
>In short, I think Reed has painted the same "logic nazi" picture of me that
>you have, complete with vivid imaginings about my supposed authoritarian
>pecking-order anxieties - where I sit around and anguish about whether I am
>indeed THE Ueber Mensch, or just the Ueber Mensch's used condom.
>
>Now aside from these vivid images which I am sure are infecting your
thoughts
>about me as we speak (sorry you will have to find your own vaccine for this
>intellectually transmitted disease - I got so absorbed in the tolerant
>lubrication, that I failed to consider a cure) - Reed also has some
>misconceptions about what I mean when I say words like "rational
criticism",
>and "justfication", and until he sorts these things out there will be no
>reprieve from these logic nazi images that he has conjured up in his mind
to
>represent me in his fantasies.
>
>I have liberally disseminated the following two links which mirror some of
my
>own thoughts on these -
>
> Non-
>Justificational Rationalism</A>
>http://www.law.mita.keio.ac.jp/~sehagi/kogawara3.html
>
>and
>
> Pancritical Rationalism
> http://www.extropy.org/pcr.htm
>
>Though those certainly aren't my complete thoughts on the matter, they do
make
>a good introduction.
>
>Honestly though, I did find it amusing how Reed managed to depict truth and
>rationality as such horrible, oppressive forces. That jumped out at me on
my
>first 10 word per minute read of his message.
>
>Just for you, Brodie, I will read Reed's most insightful post again. But I
>would suggest that Reed give my stuff more than the cursory few minutes
that I
>stand accused of here. While I have my anxieties like any other human
being,
>his anxiety map of Jake is nothing like the territory that it purports to
>describe. No representation can be expected to be perfect, but this map is
of
>an entirely different place. He has confused some "arrogant" cloud cover,
>with the actual terrain that lies below.
>
>-Jake
Couldn't you just have said, "No" in response to his question? Or maybe even "I don't want to think about this, a week is to long for that!"? Or are you afraid that, like some Douglas Adams character, if you stop talking for too long your brain will seize up?
-Prof Tim