> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Tim Rhodes
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 12:57 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: The Myth of medicine, mysticism and magic was - RE:
> virus:BraveNew World
<viscious unnoted snipping mode on - this will allow me to singe my opponents beard while not responding to any points that he might have made that I feel would be better elided abstracted or simply omitted. So much easier than glossing over the fidly bits or just playing louder!>
<Nasty sniping mode also on - this allows verbal sneak attacks that can be passed off as humour if anyone objects.>
<Snipping and sniping modes now off. It just is not my style. Sorry, but IMO bandwidth is not an excuse for incivility, evasion or a lack of humour or honour>
> And that's why I relpied equally tounge-in-cheek. (But never
> "with my lingualis
> hard against my Buccinator" -- who talks like that anyway?!?)
>
People having fun with words maybe :-) I'd bet that even those who did not
know this was 'tongue-in-cheek' could hazard a pretty accurate guess. So
much easier than fashioning out gems like craniorectalinversion.
> > It is only worthwhile listening rather than speaking only
> so long as the speaker is making sense,
>
> Something that can only be discovered through a close listening, no?
Sometimes. When the singer stops making sense, it may occasionally be caused by a poor listener, but it really is the author's duty to communicate clearly enough for his works to be understood by whatever audience he gathers. This may be one of the factors which differentiates the "good" author from the indifferent. It is sometimes hard work reading James Joyce, but the rewards are there. For the uneducated reader it has the joy of rythm and an upside down, topsy turvey, havey cavey view of life. If you can follow the allusions buried beneath 'most every line of Ulysses, then the poet's superb craftsmanship and the care taken in selecting; culling every word; every phrase, shines through and the work makes total sense at a number of subtle interwoven levels in an utterly delightful non-linear fashion. Likewise Alice in Wonderland is read by children of every age, and makes perfect sense to each reader - according to the reader's comprehension. The art is not in stringing together words like beads, any pomo can do that, but to do it in such a way that it makes sense to the reader. Coming back to this point from the Orwellian quote below, Animal Farm is a delightful and terrifying story that children can read as a fabulous story, adults without the benefit of twentieth century history can read it as political satire, and those who understand the allusions to the October Revolution and the tyranny of Stalin (Napoleon) can enjoy the book in any of these modes simultaneously.
So I repeat, listening is not always better than speaking - or squealing :-)
>
> > Approval (even passive approval) of people who
> > attempt to use reason to attack reason and cannot see or will not
> > acknowledge the impossibility of their position, is the
> last thing I intend.
>
> Exactly. But I know you're not implying that reason is
> either vulnerable to
> attack using its own tools or held in principle beyond
> rational criticism or
> scrutiny, so we are in agrement here.
>
My hackles twitch at either/or choices offered by an "opponent" (even in
non-zero sum games), usually, I find, with reason. So I looked very
carefully at this one. The poison concealed on the blade is subtle.
Feyd-Rautha would be proud of you. Reason is vulnerable to attack, not using
its own tools which can be used to detect such attacks, but rather through
insidious suggestions that reason is not necessary for comfort or
philosophy, and followed up by the suggestion that people will be more
comfortable without reason. When people adept at reasoning are the ones
advancing such arguments I become curious as to their possible motivations.
I think of D'Holbach saying "The priest and the Tyrant share the same policy
and the same interests. All either one of them needs is imbecilic and
craven subjects. Both are corrupted by absolute power, licence and
impunity. Both corrupt- one in order to rule, the other to expiate. They
come together to snuff out the light, to crush reason and drive the desire
for liberty out of the very hearts of men." and wonder which of these
excuses is lurking behind the mask. Then again, our society has not proved
very good at providing people with the tools of reason. Ask yourself how
many people could riddle one of Dodgson's syllogisms today without
assistance? Then remind yourself that he intended them for children between
7 and 14. Who is there to defend it today? Maybe asking why is not an
inappropriate thing to do. Is D'Holbach still correct today? In which case,
are we able to determine who is the priest, who is the tyrant, and which is
more effective at terminating reason?
Reason may not be beyond rational criticism in principle, and should always be subjected to multiple scrutiny as wish fullfillment and reason go so frequently together. Yet how can reason by in practice subjected to rational criticism? The primary tool for rational anything is reason. Which makes reason as axiomatic as any other proposition. And of course axioms are not subject, cannot be subject, to criticism from within the system where they are foundational. That would need a meta system. To the best of my knowledge, no such system exists. Either because it could not be implemented satisfactorilly, or because it was not needed.
Given the above, the agreement you seek appears tenuous at best, "it does not follow".
> > If as you seem to imply, this position is a sham, then it
Here we are 'prima facia' in agreement. Would we still agree were I to say
that human nature is a part of nature, and as such, is not only marvelous,
but also "red in tooth and claw".
> is the most
> > obscenely malevolent unethical display I have ever had the
> misfortune to
> > observe. Fascinating though it may be, it is like watching
> a snake playing
> > with a young bird.
>
> Nature is full of marvels, is it not?
>
> > At the last company I worked with (they are in Chapter 11
> right now), I
> > headed up the research team investigating fundamental computer,
> > communications and engineering techniques and performing
> product definition
> > and preparation of material for potential investors. No substantial
> > hierarchy.
>
> That is quite interesting. Why do you claim you "headed up" the team?
>
I was appointed as Chief Scientist, responsible directly to the board for
structuring, hiring, firing and managing the department. I guess that means
that I "headed (it) up". I proceeded to implement the department on a peer
basis, hiring suitable team players with the active participation of the
team members to that point, and working by persuasion, co-operation,
collaboration and peer review, rather than by fiat. Given the quality of the
players, and the environment, it was not very hard to do. It was also very
rewarding.
> > In my department most everyone was a peer.
>
> "Most every animal in the farm is equal."
>
Of course, on some IRC networks, the peer is the most absolute of tyrants
("connection terminated by peer"), and I have seen that tyrany in the gilded
halls of academia too often to pretend it is not frequently so. Are we
jostling a little?
In Amimal Farm, the rules were:
1.: Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. 2.: Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings is a friend. 3.: No animal shall wear clothes. 4.: No animal shall sleep in a bed <with sheets>. 5.: No animal shall drink alcohol <to excess>. 6.: No animal shall kill another animal <without reason>. 7.: All animals are equal <but some animals are more equal than others>.
The animals also agreed that no animal would enter the farmhouse, and that no animal would have contact with humans. These, not being written were the first to go, later the commands were 'modified' with the extentions in angle braces and ultimately replaced by 7 alone. The 'slogan' was "Four legs good, two legs bad" which was latter changed to "Four legs good, two legs better". Napoleon (the chief pig), it seems, was a good memeticist.
In "Politics and the English Language", Orwell listed "equality" as one of those "words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly." In his novel, 1984, he revealed even sharper feelings about the word: here the ideal of equality as understood by the best political thinkers was abandoned and the word itself was reduced by 'Newspeak' to mean no more than 'identical.' This means that "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others," is much more ambiguous than it is usually taken to be. The slogan is read to mean that some animals (the pigs) are more equal (are better) than others. Although this may seem the obvious way to read the slogan, the slogan can also bear quite another meaning, one which fits the issues raised by this work far more effectively than the obvious one. If "equal" may mean something desirable and good, it can also mean no more than "identical" or "same." It is this meaning, that predominates in Orwell's mind and the pigs' slogan. The slogan should read, "some animals (not the pigs) are more equal (are more the same) than others (the superior pigs)." In this reading the pigs would like less equality, not more; being "more equal" means that you belong to the common herd, not the elite.
I was meaning equal in the first, the English sense. My team was the elite of the elite - not a mixed bag. On the other hand, the formulation you used, "Most every animal in the farm is equal." through the Orwellian association, seems to attribute the latter to me. Am I reacting in a hypersensitive fashion, or merely with an appropriate degree of paranoia? At this time I have not reached a conclusion. I only know that if I were to attribute to the seemingly self-styled, self-identified level 3 clique, the competence they seem to attribute to themselves (and nobody I have met has a higher opinion of "level 3ers" than they have of themselves), I would have to assume that ambiguities like this would only occur through deliberate selection and therefore malice. Fortunately, I never attribute to conspiracy or malice anything that could be explained by fear, greed, incompetence or stupidity, and so live a relatively peaceful existence in a naughty world :-)
> I want to say more on this and share a little more of myself
> and my experience
> with hierachies, but at the moment I'm telneting with a very
> slow connection
> and it's difficult to concentrate on the words while I wait
> for the cursor to
> move between my every keystroke. More tomorrow, hopefully.
>
I look forward to it, you have my condolences on your connection. Slowness
is a veritable bummer and decidedly uncool.
> -Prof. Tim
>
>
TheHermit <Muttering a few gratuitous quotes just because he likes them>
"If ever a man saw himself as he really is- a lump of protoplasm indistinguishable from several billion such lumps, bound to a minor planet of a third-rate star in an ever expanding universe- he would likely say 'to hell with it' and slip back into the primordial ooze." Robert Ardrey
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is. I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing more than an act of murder." Albert Einstein
"He who is developed far beyond the level possible to the bourgeois, he who
knows the bliss of meditation no less than the gloomy joys of hatred and
self-hatred, he who despises law, virtue and common sense, is nevertheless
captive to the bourgeoisie and cannot escape it." - Herman Hesse,
Steppenwolf
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded
fear." Thomas Jefferson
"At one point consciousness-altering devices like the microscope and telescope were criminalized for exactly the same reasons that psychedelic plants were banned in later years. They allow us to peer into bits and zones of Chaos." Timothy Leary
"You say you believe in the necessity of religion. Be honest! You believe in the necessity of the police." Friedrich Nietzsche
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." George Orwell
"Well, now it is time to be off, I to die and you to live; but which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God." Plato,
"It's no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Krishnamurti
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell." St. Augustine