Log opened sam jun 17 00:00:20 2006
- 01:18
! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
- 03:26
! urgen [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
- 04:15
! urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
- 04:46
! urgen [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
- 04:59
! urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
- 05:41
! urgen [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
- 07:01
! urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
- 07:26 < urgen> nsh?
- Log closed sam jun 17 10:38:12 2006
- Log opened sam jun 17 10:38:51 2006
- 10:38
! echarp [n=33M002Pa@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
- 10:38
! Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
- 10:38
! Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
- 10:38 [Users #parlement]
- 10:38 [ EarleMartin] [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgen]
- 10:38
! Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
- 10:38
! Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
- 10:39
! Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
- 15:14
! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
- 18:43 < nsh:#parlement> urgy
- 18:50 < urgen:#parlement> ah
- 18:51 < urgen:#parlement> you remember when we crossed harmonic resonance as a political force?
- 18:51 < urgen:#parlement> something like — only the interference patterns are detectable
- 18:52
! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
- 18:52 < echarp> hello hello
- 18:52 < urgen> well it might have gone further than just governance but synonymous to me none the less ;-)
- 18:53 < urgen> this demonstration of sound waves vs form is really interesting: http://forums.eternallytransient.com/index.php/topic,347.msg623.html#msg623
- 18:53 < urgen> its a youtube video
- 18:56 < urgen> and then I found a bunch of math that looked like it might support an idea of context sensitive plotting but I don’t have that link handy at the moment
- 19:00 < urgen> and I found another group that is parallelling efforts of the digital commonwealth from a different tack — they call it the Integrated Commons
- 19:02 < urgen> oops typo’d that
- 19:02 < urgen> Integral Commons
- 19:02 < urgen> and. hi echarp
- 19:03 < urgen> I’ve been busy cleaning my office ( a couple years worth of accumulation ) and didn’t see you say anything so was figuring you weren’t around
- 19:04 < urgen> I can’t function without accumulation
- 19:04 < urgen> but there is still a limit before it begins to impact in a negative way and has to be sorted through
- 19:06 < echarp> is it a mess? an organised mess? just an orderly accumulation? :)
- 19:06 < urgen> always orderly
- 19:08 < echarp> digital commonwealth?
- 19:09 < echarp> what is that? what are their goals?
- 19:09 < urgen> I think I just made that up
- 19:09 < echarp> ok :)
- 19:09 < urgen> it has probably been used before but I wasn’t attaching any formal definition
- 19:10 < echarp> dinner is ready, want some salmon and brocolis? :)
- 19:10 < urgen> sounds nice but i just ate breakfast ;-)
- 19:10 * nsh back
- 19:11 < nsh> reading,,
- 19:11 < nsh> yah, i remember the resonnance thing
- 19:12 < urgen> re my method of organization: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/light/organization.html
- 19:13 < nsh> hrmm
- 19:13 < nsh> interesting
- 19:14 < urgen> you watch that video?
- 19:14 < echarp> urgen: lovely planet, one on dinner while the other on breakfast, nsh? :)
- 19:17 * nsh smiles
- 19:17 < nsh> about dinner time
- 19:17 < nsh> i’m 1/2 hours to the left of you
- 19:17 < nsh> or counter-spinwise
- 19:29 < echarp> :)
- 19:30 < urgen> so last night I started to explore the StumbleUpon firefox extension
- 19:30 < urgen> do you know pandora? the music suggest system?
- 19:30 < nsh> /me nods
- 19:31 < urgen> if you like this music then you might also enjoy:
- 19:31 * nsh smiles
- 19:31 < urgen> so stumbleupon is the same for websites
- 19:31 < nsh> mm
- 19:32 < nsh> except at pandora they made sorta family tree of music
- 19:32 < urgen> the anatomy of a nugget is an interesting idea
- 19:32 < urgen> I see pandora as being myopic
- 19:32 < urgen> it only gives me more of the last couple clicks I’ve indicated that I enjoy
- 19:33 < urgen> if I want five different flavors in some certain proportion it can’t handle determining the selection
- 19:33 < urgen> too bad
- 19:33 * nsh nods
- 19:33 < nsh> it’s a start
- 19:34 < urgen> so weighted agreement sounds like an essential component of digital commons
- 19:35 * nsh agrees
- 19:35 < urgen> anatomy of a nugget or extraction of a metric
- 19:35 < urgen> guess that’s not an or
- 19:36 < nsh> mmm
- 19:36 < nsh> what do you mean by nugget?
- 19:36 < urgen> lump of value
- 19:36 < nsh> ah
- 19:37 < urgen> phenny’s ety suggests value by means of historic use
- 19:37 < urgen> it carries greater weighting than fringe use
- 19:37 < urgen> so is opted for continuation
- 19:37 < urgen> ecology/economy
- 19:38 < urgen> the websites that get voted for in stumbleupon determines nugget value
- 19:38 < urgen> some ppl see value some don’t
- 19:39 < nsh> mmmm
- 19:39 < urgen> looks like more harmonics :-)
- 19:40 < urgen> value by resonance
- 19:40 < nsh> sympathy, affinity
- 19:40 < nsh> like
- 19:40 < nsh> ever go to an exploratory
- 19:41 < nsh> and they have the big parabolic dishes on opposite sides of the room
- 19:41 < nsh> and you can talk into one and hear it in the other
- 19:41 < nsh> because they are “tuned”
- 19:41 < nsh> – facing each other
- 19:42 < urgen> tuned seems like a useful term
- 19:42 < urgen> echarp forwarded ‘on the same wavelength’ the other day
- 19:42 < echarp> :)
- 19:42 < urgen> it is metaphorical but seems like it ‘has some legs’ too
- 19:42 * nsh smiles
- 19:42 < echarp> it might just be a french idiom kind of thing
- 19:43 < urgen> I think it is a hippy idiom
- 19:43 < nsh> wavelength?
- 19:43 < nsh> mmm
- 19:43 < nsh> probably predates but popularised by
- 19:43 < urgen> ‘groove’ is similar
- 19:43 < nsh> groove is nice
- 19:44 < nsh> indicates a path
- 19:44 < urgen> groovy mon
- 19:44 < echarp> oooh, groove then :)
- 19:44 < nsh> so
- 19:44 < nsh> could something like pandora be a suitable experiment for agreement engine?
- 19:44 < urgen> and illegale used ‘gravity’ to suggest attraction of attention
- 19:45 < nsh> mmm
- 19:45 < urgen> I think it has to be a component, I don’t think it is close to being an engine
- 19:46 < nsh> how do you mean?
- 19:46 < urgen> the full road map of agreement also includes grievance loops
- 19:47 < nsh> antigravity
- 19:47 < urgen> you can vote do thumbs down… but what is needed is rehash
- 19:47 < urgen> redress
- 19:48 < urgen> we need a #proto-parlement
- 19:48 < echarp> there is thumb up and thumb down on parlement already :)
- 19:48 < nsh> egg-stage turned out to be very useful in biological systems
- 19:49 < urgen> so.. sounds like we are getting close to a new rule
- 19:50 < urgen> proto-proposal: there is a process to the discovery, development, and implementation of rules
- 19:50 < nsh> hmmm
- 19:50 * nsh proto-accepts
- 19:51 < echarp> very low level
- 19:51 < urgen> this is to get the idea of ‘process’ accepted and included in game play
- 19:51 < echarp> = stating the obvious kind of thing
- 19:51 < urgen> echarp keeps saying that it is obvious
- 19:51 < urgen> yet I can’t find a single document that describes this process
- 19:51 < urgen> we are actually pioneering
- 19:52 < urgen> no obvious about it
- 19:52 < urgen> it is very well engendered, I agree
- 19:53 < urgen> but to extract the automatic process with conscious regard…
- 19:53 < urgen> not very easy
- 19:53 * nsh eating pie
- 19:53 < echarp> nsh: :-p
- 19:53 < nsh> still “listening”
- 19:53 < echarp> obvious because there is “obviously” a process to play nomic, to accept rules
- 19:54 < urgen> obviously a process to play music but that doesn’t mean I can :-)
- 19:54 < echarp> it’s like saying “there are players and a bot”, yes there are
- 19:55 < urgen> it took someone that could play music taking the time to extract the process before it could be shared
- 19:55 < echarp> what could be of interest, is a “limited” number of players
- 19:55 < echarp> well, describe the process, no need to say it exists :)
- 19:55 < echarp> “there are words in this sentence…”
- 19:56 < urgen> do first say it is to then say do it
- 19:56 < echarp> “this sentence is a sentence” :)
- 19:56 < urgen> to say do it without saying what we are doing is more difficult
- 19:56 < urgen> to know that we are describing a process means that it might be good to toss in some systems research
- 19:56 < echarp> “there are words on the screen we are reading” :)
- 19:57 < urgen> and we can abstract this to math instead of political party representative
- 19:57 < urgen> there are words on the screen we are reading, yes
- 19:57 < urgen> etymology and historical use as a weighting factor
- 19:57 < urgen> I was already trying to define that as well
- 19:57 < urgen> :-)
- 19:58 < urgen> without this system being airtight reflexive it will just fall apart
- 19:58 < urgen> ‘tuned’
- 19:58 < echarp> I don’t understand where you are going with with the weighting factor and etymology/history
- 19:58 < urgen> etymology works like a judge
- 19:59 < urgen> I say no no no the term blue means mountain
- 19:59 < urgen> we explore prior use
- 19:59 < urgen> prior art
- 19:59 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership
- 19:59 < echarp> I do understand that you want to build on stone and not on sand
- 20:00 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership are synonymous with the process
- 20:01 < urgen> we refine a step, extract even more unconscious, automatic, social reflex
- 20:01 < urgen> but not limit it by culture or creed
- 20:02 < echarp> you are digging deep
- 20:02 < urgen> otherwise it is just another faction
- 20:02 < urgen> and will find itself smashed on the windshield of world politics
- 20:02 < echarp> faction? group of people?
- 20:02 < urgen> party
- 20:02 < urgen> front
- 20:03 < echarp> well, humanity do know how to do politics
- 20:04 < urgen> the complete spectrum of general case to special interest has to be allowed easy access
- 20:04 < urgen> to answer who gets to participate you wouldn’t automatically think was already a biased question
- 20:04 < urgen> but it is
- 20:04 < echarp> do you think you/we can design something so revolutionary that it will not be just another party?
- 20:04 < urgen> of course
- 20:05 < echarp> of course “who gets to participate” is biased and laden with strong meaning
- 20:05 < urgen> I think new species are possible
- 20:06 < urgen> it doesn’t happen in a vacuum
- 20:06 < echarp> a specie, nothing less? :)
- 20:06 < urgen> and it doesn’t happen instantaneously
- 20:07 < urgen> it does depend on condition and circumstance
- 20:07 < echarp> so the building you envision aims to be a building for a new specie?
- 20:07 < urgen> I just want to be able to conserve the option
- 20:08 < urgen> without that. whatever is built will not be ‘fair’ ‘open’ ‘free’
- 20:08 < echarp> conserver the option of creating a new specie?
- 20:08 < urgen> the option to allow
- 20:08 < urgen> conserve potential
- 20:08 < urgen> not limit
- 20:09 < urgen> humans seem to have gotten the favoritism reflex/habit down very well now
- 20:09 < urgen> lets practice something different for a change
- 20:10 < echarp> did you study sociology? psychology?
- 20:10 < echarp> because I believe those are the true foundations of humanity
- 20:10 < urgen> my major was social psychology for a couple years…
- 20:10 < echarp> language and etymology just being the top of the iceberg
- 20:11 < urgen> but I also studied engineering
- 20:11 < echarp> then do you understand that our animal nature does carry weight in our culture?
- 20:11 < echarp> that we are not different in kind to the rest of the animal kingdom
- 20:11 < echarp> but in quantity => more “intelligence”
- 20:13 < urgen> I can formulate a frame of reference from which to consider such an idea :-)
- 20:13 < echarp> frame of reference? words?
- 20:15 < urgen> on which a theory is hung
- 20:16 < urgen> everything depends on the approach
- 20:16 < urgen> an art student sees something different in a gallery than a physicist sees
- 20:17 < urgen> each may be capable of fully supporting their own perspective
- 20:17 < urgen> context determines meaning
- 20:17 < echarp> yet, do you understand the pov that humans are mere animals?
- 20:17 < urgen> the experience comes before the expression of it
- 20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere biological?
- 20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere material?
- 20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere conditional?
- 20:18 < urgen> like.. we have to have food shelter, etc.
- 20:18 < urgen> mazlovs hierarchy of needs
- 20:19 < echarp> mazlovs is great
- 20:19 < echarp> (his hierarchy)
- 20:20 < urgen> I also appreciate a scope that suggests capacity is a function of lasting happiness
- 20:20 < echarp> but it’s not just our needs which are animal, I believe it goes deeper
- 20:20 < urgen> intelligence and the time to do something with it
- 20:20 < urgen> leisure to contemplate
- 20:20 < echarp> sorry, you seem to have leaped far away
- 20:21 < urgen> so you are exploring an ideas to sponsor a ‘nature of basis?’
- 20:21 < urgen> and it needed some reference to animal kingdom to be properly introduced..
- 20:21 < urgen> I’ll be back now and you can continue
- 20:22 < echarp> nature of basis elludes me
- 20:22 < urgen> that’s what we stopped on last time
- 20:22 < urgen> since a nature of truth was distasteful
- 20:22 < echarp> last time when you said that you didn’t want to use common words because they lacker originality? :)
- 20:23 < echarp> “lacked”
- 20:23 < urgen> nature of basis would be something like: has to be logical and rational
- 20:23 < echarp> uh?
- 20:23 < urgen> which maybe is why you are suggesting ‘intelligence’
- 20:23 < echarp> “who” has to?
- 20:23 < urgen> the point of agreement has to
- 20:23 < echarp> I’m merely studying your ambition to create a new specie!
- 20:23 < urgen> the understanding has to
- 20:24 < urgen> I’m probably using the term metaphorically
- 20:24 < urgen> common words unchallenged
- 20:24 < urgen> if they have been reviewed and accepted then fine.
- 20:25 < urgen> common carries quite a bit of baggage
- 20:25 < echarp> I still disagree with you strongly about that
- 20:25 < urgen> that baggage shouldn’t be allowed to slip in, would be a lack of vigilance
- 20:25 < urgen> :-)
- 20:26 < echarp> it is a dream to consider that one can remove all connotations
- 20:26 < urgen> so you want me to shut my eyes so you can slip baggage in?
- 20:26 < echarp> our whole humanity is a matter of connotations
- 20:26 < echarp> our brain is a huge network of connotations
- 20:26 < urgen> dream. that is in close proximity to lie, right?
- 20:26 < echarp> no chance you can remove them
- 20:26 < echarp> nope
- 20:27 < urgen> it is for me
- 20:27 < echarp> a dream is something one thinks of but which does not exist
- 20:27 < echarp> it exists only in one’s mind
- 20:27 < echarp> a dream
- 20:27 < echarp> a lie is, you know, something falsly communicated
- 20:29 < urgen> I do not think a lie requires conscious intention
- 20:29 < urgen> I think we lie to ourselves all the time
- 20:29 < echarp> a dream does not imply a lie, a lie does not imply a dream
- 20:29 < echarp> no causation
- 20:30 < urgen> a thought is a causation
- 20:31 < echarp> causation of?
- 20:31 < urgen> the dream
- 20:31 < echarp> a dream is a thought :)
- 20:36 < urgen> ok, so, there is no ‘dream’ outside of what translates through the perceptual matrix?
- 20:37 < urgen> but sometimes people use the word ‘dream’ indicate ‘illusion’ as a temporary mistaken identification
- 20:37 < urgen> insubstantial
- 20:38 < echarp> insubstantial, definitely
- 20:38 < echarp> illusion seem way too strong
- 20:38 < echarp> too connotated :)
- 20:39 < urgen> I’m just saying that mistaken identification is a lie, too
- 20:40 < urgen> we accidentally lie to ourself
- 20:40 < urgen> we are accidentally dishonest
- 20:40 < echarp> well, you want me to accuse you of lie?
- 20:40 < urgen> it’s just a silly mistake
- 20:40 < echarp> that would not be very nice, me thinks
- 20:40 < echarp> I’d rather just say that you are mistaken
- 20:41 < echarp> no need to add accusations on top of it
- 20:41 < urgen> since any meaning’s value depends on the frame of reference
- 20:42 < urgen> I am saying it is all equally insubstantial
- 20:42 < urgen> so since we start with a lie.. I don’t think you can compound it by saying we have yet lied again
- 20:42 < echarp> I know there are connotations, we have to play with that
- 20:42 < urgen> a mistake on a mistake is still a mistake
- 20:42 < echarp> “have to” as in “we don’t have a choice”
- 20:42 < urgen> I want a choice
- 20:42 < urgen> I want the majority of mistakes to back off
- 20:42 < echarp> you do not have “real” choice
- 20:43 < urgen> forcing an mistaken issue doesn’t make it right or legal
- 20:43 < urgen> I don’t have immediate choice in the face of a bully, correct
- 20:43 < urgen> doesn’t change the issue
- 20:43 < urgen> just requires a change in short term goals
- 20:43 < urgen> enough interruptions and lasting happiness can never be even hoped for
- 20:44 < urgen> I’m not interested in status quo
- 20:45 < urgen> there is plenty of leisure, stil, in this time, do do something
- 20:45 < echarp> what do you think of determinism?
- 20:46 < urgen> a monkey in a room with a bananna hanging and some boxes will determine that it can reconfigure the room to stack the boxes, climb them, and get the bananna
- 20:46 < urgen> as opposed to a ‘freedom of will’ where at one instance I can will my hand onto the moom…
- 20:47 < urgen> there’s a hybrid stance in there somewhere
- 20:49 < echarp> do you know what determinism is?
- 20:49 < echarp> is supposed to be anyway
- 20:50 < urgen> yes that is why I avoided it
- 20:50 < urgen> trap
- 20:51 < echarp> a trap?
- 20:51 < echarp> to me it’s a description
- 20:51 < urgen> dead end thought
- 20:51 < urgen> starts from nowhere, leads to nowhere
- 20:51 < echarp> and a huge concept that is very dear to my meme pool
- 20:51 < urgen> fatalistic
- 20:51 < echarp> fatalistic?
- 20:51 < urgen> it is a bit different than ‘cause and effect’
- 20:52 < urgen> a quantum core defeats the idea of deterministic models
- 20:52 < urgen> simultaneous and instantaneous
- 20:52 < urgen> parallell
- 20:52 < urgen> all things a determinisitic model fails at
- 20:52 < echarp> the trouble with quantums is that they are relatively new in our understanding
- 20:53 < echarp> and local to small conditions
- 20:53 < echarp> there is no knowledge about their interaction with the larger world
- 20:53 < echarp> they might just “cancel out”
- 20:54 < echarp> and it does not change one thing: humans do not have free will
- 20:54 < echarp> our choices are just dreams
- 20:58 < urgen> the cancelling out pre-determines determination
- 20:58 < urgen> point is moot
- 20:58 < echarp> it might be moot
- 20:58 < echarp> so you know what determinism is, do you think it applies on humanity full force or not?
- 20:59 < urgen> decentralized authority models should be able to allow deterministic frames of reference without requiring interference patterns on other frames of reference
- 21:00 < echarp> sorry, determinism is rather simpler than that
- 21:00 < urgen> it can’t apply unless we refuse to acknowledge the capacity to learn.
- 21:00 < urgen> ya, but I’m not simple :-)
- 21:00 < echarp> but the concept is
- 21:00 < echarp> I’m asking you about the concept!!!
- 21:00 < urgen> so it can easily be contained in complexity
- 21:00 < echarp> are you going to play “catch” around it?
- 21:04 < urgen> even simple structuralism trumps determinism
- 21:05 < echarp> how?
- 21:06 < urgen> relative suggests that determine is a human concept
- 21:07 < echarp> everything is…
- 21:07 < echarp> and?
- 21:07 < urgen> and therefore prone to biased perceptions
- 21:07 < urgen> from which people design frames of refrence to evaluate by
- 21:08 < echarp> and?
- 21:08 < echarp> determinism is a concept biased to perceptions in what way?
- 21:08 < urgen> it is perceptual
- 21:08 < urgen> it is a thought
- 21:08 < urgen> it is a concept
- 21:09 < echarp> of course it is
- 21:09 < echarp> and?
- 21:09 < echarp> is that concept valid according to you or is it not?
- 21:09 < echarp> do you think it applies or do you think it does not?
- 21:10 < urgen> concepts are not valid
- 21:10 < urgen> conceptuality is not valid
- 21:11 < urgen> a frame of reference is dependent upon the nature of its basis
- 21:11 < urgen> you set the stage all things proceed from there
- 21:11 < urgen> you establish the basis from which determinism is always true and it will be so
- 21:11 < echarp> sorry, if everything is relative, what kind of basis do you plan?
- 21:11 < urgen> from that frame of reference only
- 21:12 < urgen> is that not a neutral, fair and open basis?
- 21:12 < urgen> relative
- 21:13 < urgen> we can allow someone who believes in ufo’s, bigfoots, global controversy.. whatever
- 21:13 < urgen> unicorns…
- 21:13 < urgen> viking spirit guides…
- 21:13 < urgen> whatever
- 21:13 < urgen> and determinism too
- 21:14 < urgen> but I shouldn’t want to allow determinism to determine who is right and who is wrong
- 21:14 < urgen> that’s just impossible
- 21:14 < echarp> I’m not saying that at all
- 21:14 < echarp> I’m probing into your belief system
- 21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect in reverse
- 21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
- 21:14 < echarp> I’m asking you a question, that’s all :)
- 21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect forward
- 21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
- 21:15 < echarp> I think you do and we all do
- 21:15 < echarp> and it is very complex
- 21:15 < echarp> probably part of the reasons why we have such big brains
- 21:15 < urgen> so. by means of relative. all potential pasts and all potential futures exist already
- 21:15 < urgen> that doesn’t break ‘deterministic’ thought
- 21:16 < urgen> to be capable of meeting with the present in a way that allows one lateral motion…
- 21:16 < urgen> determinism doesn’t even have a way to evaluatio that
- 21:16 < echarp> it does not have to evaluate anything
- 21:16 < echarp> determinism in our discussion just says one thing: we do not have free will
- 21:18 < urgen> I already found that out without requiring formal definition of determinism
- 21:18 < urgen> I say. hand, go sit on the moon
- 21:18 < urgen> it doesn’t happen
- 21:18 < urgen> no free will
- 21:18 < echarp> there, no free will :)
- 21:18 < echarp> just what I said
- 21:19 < urgen> doesn’t prove determinism
- 21:19 < echarp> it does not
- 21:19 < urgen> only suggests complexity
- 21:19 < echarp> it just says that you agree with it
- 21:19 < echarp> you know, we can also just be speaking
- 21:19 < urgen> I already said that I agreed with it
- 21:19 < echarp> well, I didn’t catch it
- 21:19 < urgen> oh
- 21:19 < echarp> I had the feeling you were just looking for contradictions
- 21:20 < echarp> the hand on the moon like just one agreement in a large pool of disagreement
- 21:20 < urgen> to me the concept of free will and the concept of determinism are equally naive
- 21:20 < echarp> plus the hand is not the mind :)
- 21:20 < echarp> I don’t think they are naive, I think they are constitutive
- 21:20 < echarp> a basis of our thought
- 21:21 < urgen> ok, if accepted as gospel, then, naive
- 21:21 < urgen> as a component., fine, great
- 21:21 < urgen> the more tools the more work that can get done
- 21:22 < echarp> you should understand that I don’t think in terms of gospel or other axioms
- 21:22 < urgen> ya
- 21:22 < echarp> I am a relativist
- 21:22 < echarp> meme, determinism, rationality
- 21:22 < urgen> and maybe slightly a realist like me
- 21:22 < echarp> hopefully a realist, as much as I can try anyway :)
- 21:23 < urgen> ya, that’s what I mean.. I’m ‘slightly’ a realist
- 21:23 < urgen> to degree of capacity
- 21:24 < echarp> see, same wave length :)
- 21:24 < urgen> so far, so good
- 21:24 < echarp> and of course, I also envision a society where those thoughts can be refused by its members
- 21:24 < echarp> I do not claim to know an absolute
- 21:24 < urgen> and even then.. it is way good enough already
- 21:25 < echarp> I just claim to know something fairly important and with rather strong basis in reality
- 21:26 < urgen> workability, operability
- 21:26 < urgen> function
- 21:26 < echarp> tolerance
- 21:27 < echarp> because tolerance is stronger, more encompassing, than intolerance
- 21:27 < urgen> tolerance has taken on a few enrichments since I started to track that term
- 21:27 < echarp> because a system of system where every one is allowed to build his own happiness, carries more potentials
- 21:27 < echarp> connotations, always and of course
- 21:27 < urgen> it still has a place of acceptance but its value has increased in ways that are not on ‘common wavelengths’
- 21:28 < urgen> so tolerance has special reserved use for me now
- 21:29 < urgen> which kind of demonstrates tolerance
- 21:29 < urgen> ;-)
- 21:30 < echarp> well, you should not allow others to redefine and to forbid your use of your words
- 21:31 < urgen> harmonic layers of definition do not conflict
- 21:31 < echarp> tss tss, conflict will always happen in many ways
- 21:31 < urgen> enrich but do not limit
- 21:32 < urgen> without tension learning is impossible
- 21:32 < echarp> there is no way to totally remove inconsistencies
- 21:32 < echarp> I do not know if inconsistency = tension, but I agree that some kind of energy is useful in order to learn
- 21:33 < urgen> sure, I may be taking liberties there…
- 21:33 < urgen> :-)
- 21:33 < urgen> artistic license
- 21:33 < echarp> what is nice, is that this energy to learn seem like ingrained in humans
- 21:33 < echarp> we just have to watch babies and kids
- 21:34 < echarp> they have to go through years of school in order to remove those from them ;)
- 21:34 < urgen> ;-)
- 21:34 < urgen> good ol’ school
- 21:35 < echarp> yeap, the industry of learning
- 21:36 < urgen> ok, I’m going to get back to cleaning my horizontally organized office
- 21:37 < echarp> lol
- 21:37 < echarp> there is stargate on tv :)
- 21:37 * echarp loves science fiction, even semi crappy one
- 21:40 < urgen> stargate is great
- 21:41 < urgen> I haven’t gotten to watch much sg atlantis tho
- 21:41 < urgen> oh you meant the movie and not the series?
- 21:41 < echarp> to me it is good, and I like following it, but I soooo much prefered Babylo 5
- 21:41 < echarp> babylon
- 21:42 < urgen> I never got into that one
- 21:42 < echarp> the best ever
- 21:42 < echarp> yet not on the level of some of the best books
- 21:43 < echarp> jose farmer, david brin, greg bear
- Log closed dim jun 18 00:00:20 2006
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Highest posts
