Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:11:41 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200208272311.g7RNBk196449@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. >> > A strange sentiment, >> Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. >> To which standard do you refer? > The Zen. If this were truly your standard, you wouldn't be referring to "strange" and "normal" as opposites that mattered. >> > for someone who quotes Ch'an Master Yangqui, >> Who? > Dave Hayes wrote: > | Mind is the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like > | scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, > | the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are > | both forgotten, then your nature is real. > -- Ch'an Master Yangqui(992-1049) Ah. I wondered who originally said this, and I am still left to wonder as there is no way to verify the attribution. >> I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had >> to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I >> did. =) >> >> Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed >> to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? > > On the contrary, How is this contrary to what I said? Contrary would be something like: "You don't understand why attribution to a source is imporant" or "Of course the source is important" or something similar. Not: > your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own > signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your > actual level of familiarity with your subject. ...a comment which highlights your academic familiarity but betrays your lack of real understanding of the subject. =) Academically speaking, I will surrender the crown of "who's right" to you. Any other understnding needs no surrender of anything but one's own assumptions. >> > and yet claims that there exists a ying/yang relationship between >> > communities and trolls. >> By the use of "claims", I see you mean to drag me into a logical >> argument about what is not logical. If you want to do this dance, >> I shall, but since I recognize it is ultimately futile and you have >> a chance of seeing this...can we not do this? ;) > It's you who's ascribing the Aristotilian mean... I guess you missed my point. *sigh* Entertainment time. > to the issue > of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the > possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls > are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are > instead some third thing. Trolls would not exist without the ability to troll. Trolling, by definition, is attempting to anti-contribute by distraction. They cannot be some third thing by definition. Thus, excluded middle paradoxia has no basis for applicability in this argument. >> > The freedom to speak is not a guarantee of an audience, >> >> The freedom to speak is the freedom to speak. It implies or >> follows nothing about itself other than itself. It is something >> most every human has, regardless of those who wish to assert to the >> contrary. If the human has a brain, a mouth, and fingers...they are >> generally capable of speaking, writing, or typing. >> >> There is nothing you can really do about this. > > Sure there is. You can always close the valve at the source. You haven't removed the freedom, you've just removed the source. First, unless you remove each and every other human on the planet, there will exist some human who has the freedom to speak things you do not want to hear. Second, even if you remove all of them, their freedom is unchanging, and you'll now be bored silly the rest of your life. Finally, you can remove the source but the ideas spoken by the source will persist in your head unless you can master the easier technique to get rid of them...ignore them. Since you have to master this anyway, why kill another? > Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history > of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may > terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. It's interesting that murder is seen as a viable and good alternative to simply ignoring the speech. Murder is in most cases much more energy spent than simply tuning a cretin out using the brain you've been given. This is exactly why I consider this planet an insane asylum. ;) >> > nor is life zero-sum, such that one must tolerate fools gladly in >> > order to walk the eightfold path. >> >> It is not possible to walk the eightfold path if you are carrying a >> fool in this manner. You will exhaust yourself. > > The word "nor" negates the statement; the use of the comma was > as a conjunction. You are merely repeating what I have already > said. Perhaps you said it, but do you really buy it? >> > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum >> > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for >> > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. >> >> Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? > > "Majority makes right". We weren't talking about right and wrong were we? I merely asserted that what is true for trolls is also true for the community. > It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike > this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms > you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each > society trying to grab as much territory as possible. Evolutionary pressure is necessary to overcome genetic defects such as "worldview", "righteousness", and "opinion". If I buy out of the game, I also lose the benefit of the lesson. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A cat and a dog were fighting. A man asked them what they were doing. They said: "The winner will decide which of us is a rat." "You are both wrong," said the man. So they set upon him and put him to flight. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208272311.g7RNBk196449>