John,
If you can succeed in that reductionist/mechanist venture, maybe we should go back
and try to formalize math one more time?
It has always been clear to me that the illusion of compartmentalization is a tool
used by those who wish to control and manipulate others. *It is the MOST political
act I know* Hence we have a clear example of a self-referential inherent
contradiction being manifest here.
Don
John J Kineman wrote:
> I agree with Francis that the politics has to be kept separate or else
> it is a discussion better done in a pub over a pint of Guinness, with or
> without a companion. I don't consider this censorship, but rather
> keeping us on track.
>
> I would appreciate feedback on the technical aspects of my analysis in
> the paper at: http://www.nexial.org/ION/zeno.htm, particularly my
> statistical modeling claims. I did not include the question of
> "representativeness" vs. "voter power" in that discussion, but am
> thinking of adding that with some references now that it has been
> clarified in those terms. The difference depends on the semantics one
> assumes in the system, an aspect that is commonly overlooked, as I
> believe the current case demonstrates.
>
> "Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> >
> > Francis:
> >
> > I don't question your good intentions, but as reasonable and appropriate
> > as your admonishment appears on the surface, I suggest that you may want
> > to reconsider the implications your words. Specifically, I respectfully
> > request that you consider what might happen if you appoint yourself
> > watchdog, censor, policeman, judge and jury for the content on the
> > pcp-discuss list:
> >
> > To begin with, I submit that any attempt by anyone to censor the
> > contributions of this list's participants is likely to lead to one of
> > two unintended and unfortunate consequences: First, in my experience,
> > when an individual attempts to assert that some area is not a proper
> > topic of discussion, the discussion itself often reverts to arguing
> > about what is and is not proper. This almost invariably leads to a
> > process of choosing up sides. It also often results in the emergence of
> > an adversarial tenor in the discussions. Such an adverse attitude places
> > more stock in winning arguments than it does on exchanging ideas and
> > building mutual understanding. As a result, if we let censorship become
> > a regular feature of our discussions, the level of exchange amongst us
> > could be in danger of deteriorating into a polarized personal war of
> > words.
> >
> > The second probable outcome of encouraging any kind of top down or
> > unilateral censorship is a sharp reduction of contrasting opinions and
> > ideas. I'm sure would agree that it would be sad if we lost the diverse
> > discussions that seem to blossom in these fertile grounds from time to
> > time. I think that both of these consequences would be detrimental to
> > the value and enjoyment of subscribing to this list and participating in
> > its exchanges.
> >
> > Next, as perhaps you are aware, some of us feel that the agenda you seek
> > to advance is at odds with some of the diverse views held by other
> > contributors and subscribers to this list. I have no doubt that you
> > would never let your personal bias cause you to censor or admonish
> > anyone without a good reason. And I'm sure that you would never
> > arbitrarily try to censor me or keep me from expressing my personal
> > views.
> >
> > I'm also sure that it won't come as a big surprise to you that many of
> > the other participants on this list are well aware that you don't have
> > much respect for my views. So when you single me out and attempt to
> > censor some minor transgression such as this, they may begin to wonder
> > if you are being heavy handed, arbitrary and are abusing your position
> > to advance your personal agenda. What's more, if you continue to play
> > the role of self appointed chief censor and it then becomes obvious that
> > you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, I submit that your
> > credibility will suffer.
> >
> > Most subscribers to this list still respect your ideas, work and efforts
> > in your chosen field. But if you persist as a self appointed official
> > censor, your approval ratings could quickly drop off the charts. Is
> > that what you really want? And do you really want to garner the undying
> > wrath of everyone you bring to task?
> >
> > It is very understandable that you might take a proprietary interest in
> > the contents of the pcp-discuss list server and that this, in turn,
> > would cause you to try to direct the discussion from time to time. In
> > addition, as I recall, you don't put much stock in the notion of free
> > will and free speech. So perhaps it is easier for you to justify your
> > actions as being in the best interest of the pcp list.
> >
> > But as I've tried to point out, from a practical standpoint, I'm sure
> > you can appreciate that the job of censor could potentially be very
> > destructive to your personal credibility and your professional
> > reputation. So I would hope that this realization will cause you to
> > think twice the next time you are moved to take it upon yourself to
> > dictate what is and is not acceptable content on the pcp-discuss list
> > server.
> >
> > Norman K. McPhail
> >
> > Francis Heylighen wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to remind our estimated subscribers that this is a
> > > mailing list about cybernetic philosophy, not about present
> > > politicial debates. Applying cybernetical reasoning to analyse the
> > > Florida situation is an appropriate subject for a PCP-discuss
> > > message, but discussing the apparent motivations of the candidates,
> > > the pecularities of the US legislation, and one's personal political
> > > preferences is not. I can understand the temptation to get from the
> > > one into the other, but please keep your discussions focused on
> > > cybernetics.There are more than enough other channels to discuss the
> > > political situation. Also take into account that for people outside
> > > the US this is not necessarily interesting or even understandable.
> ========================================
> Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "John J Kineman" <John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov>
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:11:42 GMT