Why Copyright?
Souvik
At the risk of being another Sam Carana with this glaring naivety, I
wonder aloud what the point of copyrights and patents are. Aren't they
just a way to hinder communication, the very gift that evolution has
provided us through language? Do they not say, "Hey, I thought of it
first. You can't possibly think of it again!"? Do they not speak of
human pettiness and vanity?
Certainly, intellectual property is very removed from material property
which is required for our biological well being. Humans lived whole and
fulfilling lives before 'intellectual property laws' were defined. And
then the (C) came about and ushered in a whole new dimension to the
feeling of 'that's mine, keep off it!' that in my limited sight has no
justification beyond the artificial.
Even today, open source free software is the way most programmers go,
because that is the natural direction of creativity. Gnutella and other
P2P networks encourage people to share music, movies, writing, software
and other such products of intelligence that people, by consensus
(looking at how many people would share if legally allowed to) do not
want to pay for. So what good is copyright if the majority of people
would rather do without it?
If it were true that one cannot have quality stuff without copyrights,
one wouldn't have Linux, Firefox, Latex.. etc. We can still make
wonderful stuff collectively without petty copyrights and patents,
can't we?
Do we really want or need to put such boundaries on the dissemination
of knowledge, information or algorithm? Or do such constructs naturally
evolve in human society?
-Souvik
zinnic
Souvik wrote:
> Would the world be a nicer place without (C) Copyright?
>
> At the risk of being another Sam Carana with this glaring naivety, I
> wonder aloud what the point of copyrights and patents are. Aren't they
> just a way to hinder communication, the very gift that evolution has
> provided us through language? Do they not say, "Hey, I thought of it
> first. You can't possibly think of it again!"? Do they not speak of
> human pettiness and vanity?
>
> Certainly, intellectual property is very removed from material property
> which is required for our biological well being. Humans lived whole and
> fulfilling lives before 'intellectual property laws' were defined. And
> then the (C) came about and ushered in a whole new dimension to the
> feeling of 'that's mine, keep off it!' that in my limited sight has no
> justification beyond the artificial.
Naivette? Yes!
Do you "wonder aloud" about the illegitamacy of a plagiarist or of a
scientist who claims credit for the discoveries of another
investigator? Do you think that literature or science is not advanced
by proscription of these frauds?
> Even today, open source free software is the way most programmers go,
> because that is the natural direction of creativity.
That is how it used to be in 'pure ' science, but when commercial
profit became a factor ideas and results ceased to be shared. I
suspect that "most programers" are now in the same situation.
he geGnutella and other
> P2P networks encourage people to share music, movies, writing, software
> and other such products of intelligence that people, by consensus
> (looking at how many people would share if legally allowed to) do not
> want to pay for. So what good is copyright if the majority of people
> would rather do without it?
The majority of people want everything to be free. So what is the
motivation of producers to produce? The gratitude of the majority for
providing them with their entertainment and convenience?. Hardly!>
> If it were true that one cannot have quality stuff without copyrights,
> one wouldn't have Linux, Firefox, Latex.. etc. We can still make
> wonderful stuff collectively without petty copyrights and patents,
> can't we?
Sure we can. Provided that they are petty and do not involve serious
financial and principal considerations..
> Do we really want or need to put such boundaries on the dissemination
> of knowledge, information or algorithm? Or do such constructs naturally
> evolve in human society?
If a recorded text or invention of mine makes a profit then I have
the legal right to a portion of that profit. If not recorded, I have
the moral right but, unfortunately no legal right. This is the
construct that evolves in human society!
.
Souvik
> > If it were true that one cannot have quality stuff without copyrights,
> > one wouldn't have Linux, Firefox, Latex.. etc. We can still make
> > wonderful stuff collectively without petty copyrights and patents,
> > can't we?
>
> Sure we can. Provided that they are petty and do not involve serious
> financial and principal considerations..
Linux, Firefox, Latex, GCC.. are all live threats to commercial
alternatives. The open source community is often much better at
handling mole-hills that companies are known to make mountains out of.
And of course, developers at Microsoft use Linux
> > Do we really want or need to put such boundaries on the dissemination
> > of knowledge, information or algorithm? Or do such constructs naturally
> > evolve in human society?
>
> If a recorded text or invention of mine makes a profit then I have
> the legal right to a portion of that profit. If not recorded, I have
> the moral right but, unfortunately no legal right. This is the
> construct that evolves in human society!
Why should a recording or a text make a profit for you?
Because people want to pay for it. Right?
But what if the very same people don't deem it worthy of pay and would
rather copy or share it free?
See the point?
The only thing worth producing is produce.
-Souvik
Keeping life simple since 1982
zinnic
No I do not see your point! Tell me Souvik, what product will most
people insist on paying for when it is available at no cost i.e. free?.
If authors find that people "don't deem it [author's product] worthy
of pay" they will stop producing. If the authors know that their work
can be copied or shared without recompense for their talent and efforts
what motivation do they have for producing? No one is given a guarantee
that their efforts will be rewarded but if there is a guarantee that
they will go unrewarded then they will not make the effort and take
the risks necessary to achieve.
> The only thing worth producing is produce.
Explain yourself. Whatever is produced is a product! Some products
are not worth producing. Any questions?
> -Souvik
> Keeping life simple since 1982
Zinnic
Keeping life much longer than you!
Reiner
I have to agree with you on some of your arguments here. In my beliefs
and ideals of what the common goal of our species (and intelligent
life, for that matter) should be, I think the pursuit of knowledge sits
at the top of our priorities. Individually, we could never know and
understand everything within the universe, at least not with our
limited lifespans and mental limitations, however, through the
dissemination of knowledge freely amongst our species, we are able to
build upon the knowledge of others to advance the overall knowledge of
our species.
Throwing copyrights on our knowledge is just an example of the
egotistical and self-centered view most people take in life. They want
to feel that they left a mark and they are recognized for their
contribution, along with financial compensation. As for the legal
aspect of it, sure copyrighting works against the plagarists who would
use someone's work and claim it as their own -- however, should we
really hinder our advancement of knowledge as a whole because of a few
spoiled apples?
It's just the thinking that is going on in the world today. What is
more important; to pass a discovery, technology, idea, thought, or
invention down the generations, freely and openly to develop and
advance, or satisfy the individual's superficial needs while making
that idea, invention, or technology proprietary?
Souvik
> No I do not see your point! Tell me Souvik, what product will most
> people insist on paying for when it is available at no cost i.e. free?.
Not all products *can* be free. Groceries (what I referred to as
'produce') will always cost something because it takes energy and
cannot be 'photocopied'. The same goes for most material property.
Intellectual products like literature, music etc can, however, be
copied. For free. And no one wants to pay for it. If we agree on my
statement that *Payment is a social contract.*, then why should anyone
pay if they don't have to and collectively don't want to?
-Souvik
Souvik
> In my beliefs
> and ideals of what the common goal of our species (and intelligent
> life, for that matter) should be, I think the pursuit of knowledge sits
> at the top of our priorities.
Why?
-Souvik
zinnic
Are you claiming that intellectual products are not encouraged by a
profit motivation?
That in the absence of profit, intellectual products would not be
significantly decreased? That intellectual activities are pursued only
for their own sake, independent of any profit motivation?
Souvik. What planet do you live on? Get real!
zinnic
And when did that thinking not go on? In communist states that became
impoverished!
What do you mean by an "individual's 'superficial needs"? A need to
prosper in society, to provide a good life for family etc.? That may be
superficial for you but it is basic for most of us. Whether or not an
invention is made proprietory, its advantages acrue to the prosperity
of future generations.
It is unreal to expect everyone to dedicate themselves to the
general good. Human nature relates to self improvement. This is what
society should encourage to its own advantage.
Zinnic
Souvik
> Are you claiming that intellectual products are not encouraged by a
> profit motivation?
> That in the absence of profit, intellectual products would not be
> significantly decreased? That intellectual activities are pursued only
> for their own sake, independent of any profit motivation?
Oh, sure intellectual production would decrease.
Do we really need them?
As I see it, there are two kinds of intellectual products. Those that
we need. And those that are auxillary. The ones that we need (like
farming know-how, building know-how..etc) should be freely accessible,
just like the auxillary ones (like art, literature, string theory,
movies.. etc). I don't think we'd live any less fulfilling lives that
way.
A law is a social contract. Payment is a social contract. Copyright is
a social contract. When a large fraction of society infringes on its
own law, why should that law be?
-Souvik
PS: This thread is semi-serious, Zinnic. I know I'm battling with epic
naivette, but hell... I'm kicking some epic ass here!!! ;-P
PPS: Pretend I were Sam.
Souvik
> And when did that thinking not go on? In communist states that became
> impoverished!
Actually, most communist states became impoverished because capitalist
states were meaner.
And bad power hungry government and corruption, which has little to do
with communism and more to do with human nature in times of scarcity. A
lot of capitalist states went down that drain too.
> What do you mean by an "individual's 'superficial needs"? A need to
> prosper in society, to provide a good life for family etc.?
Oh, that exists in open-source communist societies as well.
> That may be
> superficial for you but it is basic for most of us. Whether or not an
> invention is made proprietory, its advantages acrue to the prosperity
> of future generations.
At the cost of not letting other people borrow and build on certain
ideas.
> It is unreal to expect everyone to dedicate themselves to the
> general good. Human nature relates to self improvement. This is what
> society should encourage to its own advantage.
I do not see why it cannot be obtained in an open-source society. It'll
emerge and stabilise at the point where further progress is
unnecessary. And that is EXACTLY what we need.
-Souvik
Souvik
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39236750,00.htm
It pushes your case, Zinnic. And makes the whole capitalism, communism,
open source link we're talking about here! Coincidence?
-Souvik
roudra
Not all products *can* be free. Groceries (what I referred to as
'produce') will always cost something because it takes energy and
cannot be 'photocopied'. The same goes for most material property.
Intellectual products like literature, music etc can, however, be
copied. For free. And no one wants to pay for it. If we agree on my
statement that *Payment is a social contract.*, then why should anyone
pay if they don't have to and collectively don't want to?
Reiner
around, however, I believe that the development of life in the universe
could probably be broken down into a certain formula. That is, if we
look the way life was started on this planet, it was due to our planet
being a certain distance away from the Sun, certain materials which
needed to form together to make the planet of the right density, with
right activity and matter necessary to create the right atmosphere, and
create the spark of life. Then if you exame what exactly life has done
and developed into (at least on this planet) and also examining this
with how life started and what life exactly is, you could say perhaps
that life is the energy within the universe becoming sentient. Through
evolution and it's development, it eventually forms into intelligent or
aware life that begins to try to understand itself. If you look at
what sets humans apart from other creatures on this planet, it's our
ability to extrapolate and ask the question "why?" and we are a product
of our surrounding nature and life's evolution on this planet -- and
we've made it thus far through the spreading and dissemination of
knowledge acquired during one's life to our progeny, who build upon our
existing knowledge and then spread down to their progeny. Taking this
back to the point, if it's the passing on of knowledge and ideas which
have gotten us so far, or this far, then why slow that down through the
use of copyrights, solely to protect financial interests, which is
something a material asset which sprung out of our imaginations?
Souvik
> souvik
> Not all products *can* be free. Groceries (what I referred to as
> 'produce') will always cost something because it takes energy and
> cannot be 'photocopied'. The same goes for most material property.
> souvik does that that mean that that softwares and digital media ( since
> they can be photocopied ) are not the aoutcome of someones sweat?
Yes, they are the product of someone's sweat. But then, people can
sweat at all sorts of things. However, consumers will pay for stuff
that there is general consensus about paying for.
For example, a group of people could sweat their butts off climbing a
mountain.
> Intellectual products like literature, music etc can, however, be
> copied. For free. And no one wants to pay for it. If we agree on my
> statement that *Payment is a social contract.*, then why should anyone
> pay if they don't have to and collectively don't want to?
> when you say that " noone wants to pay for it " , you take into account all
> those peple who want everything for free.
Shouldn't the world be as free as possible?
> think of a world as youre proposing. suppose you are a programmer. you have
> studies in some institution and you are well educated and intelligent. now
> you go to a company and you are offered a job. that company will pay you
> only when they can sell something ,( a software you created ) right?
> and in " your " world , everything digital is free ( including your created
> software )
> so how will the company profit and how will you earn?
> this was if we proceed then we wont find so many dedicated programmers as we
> find today. is it a scenerio best suited for the development of the society
> as we see it now?
I am questioning the very words you call 'progress' and 'development'.
Could one view them as 'foolish complications'? Why do we need any
intellectual development beyond the basic ones of sustenance?
Do we really need professional programmers or companies that do them?
Anyone can program -- its one of the dumbest, most derivative jobs,
ever! What companies like Microsoft do are make petty (often bloated)
compilers that will only work with their kind of code. And then sell
those compilers for their adherents!
And then Snoop Dogg or Britney Spears will release some crap music on
CDs and expect people to pay for it.
> lets look at it in a different way shall we.
> during the second world war, it was said to be golden times for the
> scientists. but as people say, physicists and chemists ets have lost the
> charm that they found during the war. i am not at all supporting the notion
> of war. i merely want to point out that when time comes and the needs are
> pressing, human minds make marvellous discoveries.
> i think the proverb that " necessity is the mother of invention "
> definitely has some amount of truth adhered to it. . .
> if i work , i do it to earn money primarily. that forces me to work hard and
> work efficiently. if my work isnt going to feed me , how many days can i
> sustain such charity?
> how real will such a world be?
Which is why I suggest you to go back to farming, hunting, loving and
eating. The more removed from our biologically evolved functions our
activities become, the less satisfying life becomes.
Ahh.. fuckit. I'm beginning to sound like from Fight Club.
Souvik
So you're on my side. Yay!
Your last line entirely echoes my sentiment as I post on this thread.
The other side's contention is that creating information and knowledge
is a respectable job that needs to be paid for. I don't think so. I
think that information and knowledge can develop at its own pace
pressed by the common needs of society and kept completely open and
free for futher development.
However, the only catch I see is: Human nature entails a petty
possessiveness which cannot be over-ruled. Open-source scenarios,
though ideal for progress, are unstable for the same reason communism
can be.
-Souvik
Tonguessy
Reiner wrote:
In my beliefs
> and ideals of what the common goal of our species (and intelligent
> life, for that matter) should be, I think the pursuit of knowledge sits
> at the top of our priorities.
Are you sure that knowledge, and not wisdom, compassion, empathy must
sit at the top of our priorities? Knowing how to built WMD is so
essential to an "intelligent species" like ours?
Regards
Tonguessy
goozlefotz
development if the developer did not have some kind of protection to
reward him for his work.
zinnic
Coincidence you ask? Do I detect a slightly 'Samish' implication here?
My posts to this thread are not strongly motivated either by economic
or political motives .
Let me put it this way. I believe in a 'mixed economy'. I believe that
my 'mix' is more practical and considerably less 'dedicated' to a
political ideal than is your 'mix'.
Zinnic
Reiner
Without a doubt, I do think that compassion and empathy are important
as well. I consider wisdom to be experience multiplied by knowledge.
So let's bring compassion into this then. How is there compassion in
the egos controlling the spread of knowledge and ideas through the use
of copyrighting to protect their own personal gain or financial
interests?
zinnic
Protecting one's own personal gain or financial interest does not
preclude the possession of compassion! A failure to do so, however,
does preclude the possession of practical common sense.
To demand that everyone labor only for the common good is to deny a
basic human instinct. Even informed altruism directed towards the
common good has an element of selfishness, in that self-advantage is
the underlying motive. An instinct for preservation of self and kin is
the sine qua non for survival of individuals and species.
The "Utopias" envisaged by religions and political systems are
impractical idealistic constructs that deny the real nature of
humans. For examples, Christianity demands acceptance of the
'unhumanity' of always "turning the other cheek", and Communism demands
acceptance of the 'inhumanity' of a total denial of choice. They fail
to realise that humans are neither unhuman nor inhuman.
IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
Jason Lang
> work efficiently. if my work isnt going to feed me , how many days can i
> sustain such charity?
> how real will such a world be?
'real' ?? How can you say that of the current system of intellectual
censorship which did not even exist one century ago ? We got to the
20th century quite well without such laws, and you can hardly claim
that our shared human history lacks innovation can you ?
IP laws are the 'drug-laws' of the mind. They are an artificial means
to maintain a commercial status quo in an age in which the technology
and society has moved on. They will never work in the same way that
drug law enforcement which only targets supply will never work. The
demand is still there, the technology is there and constantly
improving, and people will use it because it is convenient. Proponents
of social control can manipluate such issues as an excuse for greater
surveilance of communication channels and people is general.
Until last century, copyright covered little more than the life of the
artist. Today in the United States it is, i believe, Artists life plus
90 years. This benefits huge corporations and a few others. Mickey
mouse will be in copyright to somewhere around 2045. In what way
exactly does this benefit innovation ? Corporations have little
incentive to really innovate when they can milk existing material for
more than a century.
BTW, what i think annoys the pro - IP brigade is that the GNU (which
covers Linux) 'General Public License' manipulates (perfectly legally)
the copyright laws to protect the status of open source software. This
is much stronger legally than just 'Public Domain' code, which is not
targetted (by the anti open source lobby) because it can be freely
incorporated into commercial software and copyrighted. Everything in
the GPL is perfectly legal and leverages the same copyright law as
commercial software for it's protection. This is what annoys them most
of all, because they have no legal or commercial recourse against the
GPL without attacking their own copyright laws !
- Jason
Jason Lang
Gee can you show me the quote from Marx or Engels where they say that
choice is a bad thing ? 'Communism' is a (now pratically meaningless,
since it's been assosicated with so many concepts) term abused by all
sides for political advantage.
- Jason
Reiner
force a lack of compassion (for others), it certainly does NOT promote
it.
I also agree with your statement on human choice. Limiting everyone's
choices to those decided upon by the established political or religious
system would certainly not promote production or help spread knowledge
or ideas any more efficiently. To further your argument against
communism, it is based on a preconceived notion that humans are in fact
equal. While this is not at all a racist belief of any way shape or
form, I do not believe in equality. We all have different strengthes
and weaknesses, both physically and mentally. You cannot expect a
doctor who goes to school for 8 years to receive the same exact pay or
standard of living as someone who can't make it past high school and
settles on a fast food management job. There would simply be no
incentive or motivational reason for any of the more intelligent to
actually want to go through the "hoops" only to be the same as everyone
else.
That would be counter-productive to our development as a species.
However, I do suggest that there may a compromise, at least in regards
to dealing with Intellectual Property. The copyright laws we currently
have most definitely fits into being extremely capitalist. True while
it does protect a person's financial interests, it definitely goes
beyond that to provide gross benefits to corporations.
Though it may not be an exact parallel, look at what open-source
software is doing to it's respective market. The difference between
open-source and copyrighted software is obvious. In a copyrighted
enviroment, with Windows for example, if someone were to discover a bug
(in Windows? Never! :-P), we would all have to deal with it until the
developer of the software either decided to listen to the advice or
discovered and patched the bug themselves. In an open-source
environment, they have the ability to develop and contribute to that
software -- which most of the time, if it's a useful modification or
advancement, makes it into the public distribution. Google, for
example, has taken coding suggestions from gurus on the net, since they
have open-source products.
By the way, Google definitely has their financial interests secured.
There is a way to make an open-source win-win for both the consumer and
the developer.
Souvik
i do not think such development is necessary at any stage.
-souvik
Souvik
> Communism demands
> acceptance of the 'inhumanity' of a total denial of choice. They fail
> to realise that humans are neither unhuman nor inhuman.
That would be the Fox News version of Communism.
If you must know what Communism feels like and how it works, you must
live in a stable Communist government for a year or two.
I can assure you that Communist governments can be very conducive for
exploring the full potential of the human experience. For example, the
state I was raised in is primarily communist, a little smaller than the
size of Connecticut and boasts 7 Nobel Laureates (including Bose of
Bose Einstein Condenstate, Chandrashekhar of Chandrashekar Limit, Raman
of Raman Spectroscopy, Mother Theresa.. and a few more for Economics,
Physics and Literature). [You must understand meanwhile that India is
not anywhere as well represented in the Swedish Academy as the USA and
there are often scientists who's breakthroughs are not represented with
enough political clout.] Take the example of Russian science (which at
least in undergrad physics is years ahead US undergrad physics --
something I've noticed teaching undergrad).
Anyway, the point is: Communism is far from inhuman. It stems from the
human response of sharing in times of want and the belief that the rich
man's child should have the same opportunities as the poor man's. The
USA can afford to be Capitalist because there's plenty to go around
(and yet, look at how indebted to creditors the common citizen is!!).
There do exist foresighted governments in the world that strive to
bring out the best in people -- a lot of them are thinking Communists.
Souvik
> To further your argument against
> communism, it is based on a preconceived notion that humans are in fact
> equal. While this is not at all a racist belief of any way shape or
> form, I do not believe in equality. We all have different strengthes
> and weaknesses, both physically and mentally. You cannot expect a
> doctor who goes to school for 8 years to receive the same exact pay or
> standard of living as someone who can't make it past high school and
> settles on a fast food management job. There would simply be no
> incentive or motivational reason for any of the more intelligent to
> actually want to go through the "hoops" only to be the same as everyone
> else.
That is not how it works in Communist states today. Doctors do receive
higher pay than the clerk, but HE does not get to arbitrate his rates.
The government puts lower and upper limits on his income, but they are
higher than a clerk (though not arbitrarily so). Two things are ensured
-- 1. The common folk can avail of his services in need, 2.
Fluctuations of wealth in the economy do not become a runaway process
over generations (i.e., doctor gets rich, sends his kids to good
schools, his kids get richer.. till their family becomes a
concentration of wealth).
If you read the Communist manifesto, you will find Marx clearly stating
that human beings are not equal in capability. *Everyone* understands
that, it is nothing profound. What is (or possibly is) profound is his
idea that such fluctuations in capability and income should NOT become
runaway processes and make wealth gravitate towards a few lucky
families (or strata of society).
There is still excellent motivation and atmosphere for innovation and
intellectual growth in a Communist society (in a reply to Zinnic, I
cited the density of Nobel Laureates in Communist states) that does not
exist in most wealth-mongering Capitalist states.
-Souvik
PS: You must also understand why Communism came about -- what kinds of
economic disparity drove it -- to appreciate what kinds of modern
situations require it and which don't.
Souvik
> Coincidence you ask? Do I detect a slightly 'Samish' implication here?
Oh no! I thought it was a curious coincidence to see other important
people thinking about similar stuff as us. That's all!
Tonguessy
> How is there compassion in
> the egos controlling the spread of knowledge and ideas through the use
> of copyrighting to protect their own personal gain or financial
> interests?
Ach, good question. How long can an adequate answer be? The role of
importance in modern economies and societies vs the joy of sharing. The
cost of living vs the necessity of loving. The same concept of
knowledge has greatly changed in the last few centuries. Nowadays
knowledge has technological implications: it's a business that must be
adequately rewarded. Or punished. But knowledge has gained this
commercial meaning only in recent times.
It would be wise to reconsider knowledge not as a socially important
process, but as an essential aspect of corporations who SELL it. Of
course another world is possible.
Maybe.
Compassion doesn't go any better, alas. Think about Live Aid.
Everything has a price. Welcome aboard.
Regards
Tonguessy
Tonguessy
> zinnic wrote:
> > It is unreal to expect everyone to dedicate themselves to the
> > general good. Human nature relates to self improvement. This is what
> > society should encourage to its own advantage.
> Souvik
> I do not see why it cannot be obtained in an open-source society. It'll
> emerge and stabilise at the point where further progress is
> unnecessary. And that is EXACTLY what we need.
>
Good point, Souvik. Do you have a vague idea about how expensive to
corporations an open-source society would be? Do you think they can
MAKE US WORK for free (ie without their huge incomes)?
To zinnic: human nature is decided by humans (in democratic
circumstances).
Or by a few humans, model currently adopted.
Regards
Tonguessy
Tonguessy
Souvik wrote:
> I am questioning the very words you call 'progress' and 'development'.
> Could one view them as 'foolish complications'? Why do we need any
> intellectual development beyond the basic ones of sustenance?
Yes, apparently. Cultural bias driven by industries, maybe?
>
> And then Snoop Dogg or Britney Spears will release some crap music on
> CDs and expect people to pay for it.
>
If the majority of CD buyers shared your opinion such "artists" would
not be so important. I'd like to know what cultural parameters are used
by such buyers and what cultural parameters make you say so.
Regards
Tonguessy
> Which is why I suggest you to go back to farming, hunting, loving and
> eating. The more removed from our biologically evolved functions our
> activities become, the less satisfying life becomes.
>
> Ahh.. fuckit. I'm beginning to sound like from Fight Club.
I love this....:)
zinnic
You make my point. Some humans "decide" what human nature is and then
try to construct a society that fits their decision. What they
actually decide is human behaviour, not human nature. Our nature was
"decided" by eons of evolution!.
We should "decide" to fit society to what we actually are! Not to
someone's decision as to what we ought to be!
Zinnic
Tonguessy
> Protecting one's own personal gain or financial interest does not
> preclude the possession of compassion!
Any examples?
> A failure to do so, however,
> does preclude the possession of practical common sense.
What common sense? Exploitation maybe?
> To demand that everyone labor only for the common good is to deny a
> basic human instinct. Even informed altruism directed towards the
> common good has an element of selfishness, in that self-advantage is
> the underlying motive.
I strongly disagree here. Common good is too often a dictatorial item
(family, God, country etc.) used to deceive people. I see no altruism
in a war done to "bring democracy". The one and only advantage in wars
goes to banks and corporations.
No individual (but CEOs) has any benefit from a war.
Where is selfishness?
> IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
> preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
> society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
"society" exactly mean and where's their epistemological difference?
Regards
Tonguessy
Tonguessy
> Protecting one's own personal gain or financial interest does not
> preclude the possession of compassion!
Any examples?
> A failure to do so, however,
> does preclude the possession of practical common sense.
What common sense? Exploitation maybe?
> To demand that everyone labor only for the common good is to deny a
> basic human instinct. Even informed altruism directed towards the
> common good has an element of selfishness, in that self-advantage is
> the underlying motive.
I strongly disagree here. Common good is too often a dictatorial item
(family, God, country etc.) used to deceive people. I see no altruism
in a war done to "bring democracy". The one and only advantage in wars
goes to banks and corporations.
No individual (but CEOs) has any benefit from a war.
Where is selfishness?
> IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
> preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
> society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
zinnic
> zinnic wrote:
> > Communism demands
> > acceptance of the 'inhumanity' of a total denial of choice. They fail
> > to realise that humans are neither unhuman nor inhuman.
>
> That would be the Fox News version of Communism.
> If you must know what Communism feels like and how it works, you must
> live in a stable Communist government for a year or two.
Kerala state is to be much admired. There are good reasons as to why
its "communism" did not descend into the excesses of international
communism, that you blithely dismiss as the "Fox News version of
Communism".
It is understandable that you retain a strong political bias but I am
not inclined to get into a purely polical discussion. As in religions,
so it is in politics. For example, when a 'communist' state fails,
your cop out is that "real" communism was not practised. Christians
and most politicians use the same cop out. (And my golf game fails
because I do not practice 'real golf. Duh! :-).
I am a strong advocate of government supported education for all. I
was educated in a democratic socialist state (UK) and remain grateful
for a free undergraduate and graduate education under the education
policy instituted by the socialist (labor) party. This was not
previously possible for most working stiffs under the British
university system. (In contrast, it has long been possible (given the
desire) to work one's way through college in the USA, no matter one's
economic status). Once the opportunity is provided by society, the
enterprise of the individual becomes paramount. One danger for a
society that provides a 'free lunch' is that, human nature being what
it is, many citizens will not settle for it and so seek an environment
that will better reward their abilities and effort. Does that seem
familiar?
A number of states even made it illegal to to do so! But, of course,
that is not 'real' communism!.
As I stated previously, our difference lies in what we regard as an
appropriate mix of individual enterprise and societal regulation. I
believe my views lie somewhere between yours and Sam's. God bless her.
I hope she is happily posting in some alt.capitalism group.
Regards
Zinnic
..
goozlefotz
zinnic wrote:
>
> Are you [souvik] claiming that intellectual products are not encouraged by a
> profit motivation?
> That in the absence of profit, intellectual products would not be
> significantly decreased? That intellectual activities are pursued only
> for their own sake, independent of any profit motivation?
> Souvik. What planet do you live on? Get real!
I have two patents. Both of them belong to Monsanto as that was where
I was working at the time. I think I got $25 for each one. I see
nothing unfair about that because Monsanto was paying me to do the
research; I would not have been doing it without their support. I have
spent many years in product development at several companies. Since I
did all of it under the umberella of some company which was paying my
salary and providing the facilities, I believe that the company should
have the rights to the results of that work. Ultimately, it is simple
economics. The money is invested in hopes of getting a good return.
If the return did not have some protection, they would put the money
elsewhere.
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
>
> > Protecting one's own personal gain or financial interest does not
> > preclude the possession of compassion!
>
> Any examples?
>
> > A failure to do so, however,
> > does preclude the possession of practical common sense.
>
> What common sense? Exploitation maybe?
Should I assume that you do not protect your own and your family's
financial interest? I advise you to start doing so, because if you
expect someone else (tax payers?) to do so, you are mistaken.
>
> > To demand that everyone labor only for the common good is to deny a
> > basic human instinct. Even informed altruism directed towards the
> > common good has an element of selfishness, in that self-advantage is
> > the underlying motive.
>
> I strongly disagree here. Common good is too often a dictatorial item
> (family, God, country etc.) used to deceive people. I see no altruism
> in a war done to "bring democracy". The one and only advantage in wars
> goes to banks and corporations.
> No individual (but CEOs) has any benefit from a war.
> Where is selfishness?
>
You have lost me. I do not understand your diversion into war.
> > IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
> > preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
> > society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
>
> Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
> "society" exactly mean and where's their epistemological difference?
>
In epistemologiy, what something "exactly' means is IMO a search for
the non-existent 'Holy Grail". As to the meanings generally conveyed
by "human nature" and "society", I refer you to any dictionary of the
English language.
Zinnic
Souvik
> Kerala state is to be much admired.
I was educated in West Bengal. Which is also democratic socialist.
Otherwise, I quite agree with you actually. :-P
There are situations when communism is applicable -- like when the
burgeious class overwhelms and exploits the labouring classes. However,
when there is sufficient to go around for everyone, individual
enterprise must be rewarded with capital. Replace 'must' with 'will'.
I kinda brought this topic up to bring the group out of moribundency.
Can I patent this word now?
I do not have very strong feelings for communism or open source -- but
that just arises of my inexperience of the complexities involved. Which
is why I want to discuss these questions...
-Souvik
zinnic
I agree. I simply do not understand the idealistic notion that society
can be enriched and progress without ensuring that its minority of
innovaters and achievers are encouraged by the possibility of rewards
greatly in excess of the expectations of non-risk takers. Government
may control and regulate. It has a poor record of entrepreneural
innivation.
Tonguessy
goozlefotz wrote:
> Ultimately, it is simple
> economics. The money is invested in hopes of getting a good return.
> If the return did not have some protection, they would put the money
> elsewhere.
Yeah, that's all about: corporations make huge profits, not ethics.
That's the true limit of modern science and technology: sold to the
best buyer (warlords included).
"The horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today
stems primarily
from the mechanization and dehumanization of our lives -- a disastrous
byproduct of
the development of the scientific and technical mentality."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Regards
Tonguessy
Tonguessy
zinnic wrote:
> Should I assume that you do not protect your own and your family's
> financial interest?
I do not protect my family's financial interests, since i've decided to
have 2 kids (very expensive), i go on vacation whenever possible (less
income, more expenses) and i always try not to have too much money in
my bank account (couldn't anyway...). For a good principle: i don't
want any banker to use my hard earned money. Banks do not protect my
financial interests, they just protect theirs. So we have a very
different idea of what "financial interest" mean. Basically i'm more
interested in happiness than in financial wealth.
Sorry about that.
Z:
> >Z:
> You have lost me. I do not understand your diversion into war.
T:
you claimed that self-advantage is the underlying motive of altruism.
Unfortunately there's no self -advantage in many (all?) cases of
altruism. War (where people are ordered to be truly altruist toward
their Nation, God , Family etc...) is one example.
>
> > > IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
> > > preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
> > > society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
> >
> > Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
> > "society" exactly mean and where's their epistemological difference?
> >
> In epistemologiy, what something "exactly' means is IMO a search for
> the non-existent 'Holy Grail". As to the meanings generally conveyed
> by "human nature" and "society", I refer you to any dictionary of the
> English language.
> Zinnic
Do you have a standard, average, normal, ordinary understanding of what
"human nature" and "society" mean? I warn you: you might even win
$700,000! The Board of the College of Patapsychology offers one million
Irish punds [around $700,000 American] to any "normalist" who can
exhibit "a normal sunset, an average Beethoven sonata, an ordinary
Playmate of the Month, or any thing or event in space-time that
qualifies as normal, average or ordinary."
Go to http://www.rawilson.com/csicon.shtml for applications
Regards
Tonguessy
Tonguessy
Souvik wrote:
> I kinda brought this topic up to bring the group out of moribundency.
> Can I patent this word now?
How about comatose muribundency? 50-50 copyright can do ?
Regards
Tonguessy
PS. In case you haven't noticed it: also copyleft exists.
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
>
> > Should I assume that you do not protect your own and your family's
> > financial interest?
>
> I do not protect my family's financial interests, since i've decided to
> have 2 kids (very expensive), i go on vacation whenever possible (less
> income, more expenses) and i always try not to have too much money in
> my bank account (couldn't anyway...). For a good principle: i don't
> want any banker to use my hard earned money. Banks do not protect my
> financial interests, they just protect theirs. So we have a very
> different idea of what "financial interest" mean. Basically i'm more
> interested in happiness than in financial wealth.
> Sorry about that.
Z: Do not be sorry! If you are being really truthful in what you say,
then I guess you are an' average' family man, content with your
status quo and confident that your future needs will be adequately met
with or without assistance from other tax payers. Enjoy your vacations
whilst you can.
> > >Z:
> > You have lost me. I do not understand your diversion into war.
> T: you claimed that self-advantage is the underlying motive of altruism.
> Unfortunately there's no self -advantage in many (all?) cases of
> altruism. War (where people are ordered to be truly altruist toward
> their Nation, God , Family etc...) is one example.
Z: "...ordered to be truly altruistic..."? Again I am lost!
Please parse that for me!
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
>
Z:Reply to Tonguessy. Continuation of incomplete post.
> > > > IMO it is impossible to fashion human nature to fit the rules of a
> > > > preconceived society whereas it is eminently possible to fashion a
> > > > society to fit human nature. The latter should be our practical goal.
> > >
> > > Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
> > > "society" exactly mean and where's their epistemological difference?
> > >
> > In epistemologiy, what something "exactly' means is IMO a search for
> > the non-existent 'Holy Grail". As to the meanings generally conveyed
> > by "human nature" and "society", I refer you to any dictionary of the
> > English language.
> > Zinnic
>
> Do you have a standard, average, normal, ordinary understanding of what
> "human nature" and "society" mean? I warn you: you might even win
> $700,000! The Board of the College of Patapsychology offers one million
> Irish punds [around $700,000 American] to any "normalist" who can
> exhibit "a normal sunset, an average Beethoven sonata, an ordinary
> Playmate of the Month, or any thing or event in space-time that
> qualifies as normal, average or ordinary."
> Go to http://www.rawilson.com/csicon.shtml for applications.
Z: Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I do enjoy whimsy and satire.
As literary vehicles, they often make a point more effectively than do
serious expositions. I am neither a "Saxon" nor a "grocer", but
I admit to being a "Fundamental Materialist", albeit of Celtic
stock. I plead guilty to being one of those who try to bring coherence
to their world-view by using a "generalized norm that only exists in
their brain". You may find coherence in the absence of generalities,
but I need them to simplify things. I find the Devil in the complexity
of exact details!
If I am correct in understanding your motive in providing the link, our
communication may be an absolute waste of my time and yours. I must
warn you that I make a practice of using words in their normative
meanings. I am a loss as to how else to convey my thoughts. Help me out
here, Tonguessy!.
Regards, Zinnic
zinnic
humans were something else. In practice, Communism has been
characterized by its attempts to stifle choice. Gulags, Pol pot etc.
But of course, that is not theoretical 'communism!
Zinnic
zinnic
I agree that protecting one's own interests does not actually promote
compassion. However, one could argue that 'hard wired' compassion' may
be a factor in survival of our species. IMO that would constitute 'self
interest' .
Perhaps 'compassion' follows an inverse square law.The more one
identifies with the subject, the more intense the emotion. The more
remote the subject, the less intense the emotion. With increasing
distance does compassion degrade from a highly charged emotion into an
intellectual exercise? A cold thought, but not to be denied?
I also agree that there should be a compromise in the "extremely
capitalist" control of patents and copyright. If there is a win-win
solution then I am all for it. However, IMO provision of unlimited
'freebies' destroys the intrinsic value of a product, and endangers the
"goose (profit) that lays the golden egg".
Reiner
and compassion. In fact, you can see living, breathing examples of
that comparison all around you. I'm not sure I get what you're
suggesting though; if someone were to increase their distance, would
that person lose compassion or transform that compassion into an
intellectual exercise?
Problem with those cold, emotionless thoughts lies in behavior it can
usually produce. Someone who is dissociated from society and lacks any
compassion for his fellow beings is like a cancer to the species.
Maybe you could compare individuals to the cells within our body. Many
cells with different functions acting together to form a human being.
Individual human beings with different functions (strengths) acting
together to form a society. Ideally, you'd hope that things would run
perfectly and flawlessly, but that hardly would be natural. Communism
doesn't work because a governing body tells the people what their
[limited] choices are. Capitalism doesn't work because focusing
entirely on profit margins, yield spreads, and bottom-lines usually
leaves the big corporations or rich on top and the poor on the bottom.
There has to be a middle ground. Maybe doing away with copyrights
would not be the best thing because just as profiteering can hinder
development and advancement, taking things to the other extreme would
be just as detrimental. Perhaps the copyright laws should go back
towards where they were and limit the copyright of an original work to
the life of the originator. That way one would have their motivation
in securing intellectual property for the duration of their life while
at their death, opening the product/idea/innovation up to be
redeveloped and advanced. Perhaps once the originator of an idea or
product passes on, that original idea/product should not be eligible to
be re-copyrighted and should remain in the public domain. Seems like
the most logical compromise.
Tonguessy
zinnic wrote:
> I admit to being a "Fundamental Materialist"
Do you practice Materialistic Fundamentalism?
> I find the Devil in the complexity of exact details!
Necessary but useless items
> If I am correct in understanding your motive in providing the link, our
> communication may be an absolute waste of my time and yours.
I have no idea of what may "waste of time" mean in your head. I
personally know no activity that i know doesn't imply a time
consumption. "Waste" is a personal definition according to personal
taste. I therefore challenge to prove that i'm wasting my time. No need
to prove that you are wasting yours. I'm not interested in your own
business.
I admit to being a "Basic Skepticist" and a MYOB (Mind Your Own
Business) worshipper.
> I must
> warn you that I make a practice of using words in their normative
> meanings. I am a loss as to how else to convey my thoughts. Help me out
> here, Tonguessy!.
Are you sure you (or i) can convey anything? "Normative meaning"
conveys nothing to me. May i suggest you S.Beckett or E.Jonesco? "Bald
Soprano" remains one of my favorite, ever.
Don't ask for help, please. Time shortage makes it temporarily not
available.
Regards
Tonguessy
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
>
> > I admit to being a "Fundamental Materialist"
>
> Do you practice Materialistic Fundamentalism?
Yes! At least to the extent that I prefer there be some 'substance' to
a discussion!
> > I find the Devil in the complexity of exact details!
>
> Necessary but useless items
Parse some meaning into this response.
You state (below) that you doubt your capability of conveying
meaning. You should at least make the attempt, otherwise I can only
assume that, in posting to this thread, you are simply pleasuring
yourself..
> > If I am correct in understanding your motive in providing the link, our
> > communication may be an absolute waste of my time and yours.
>
> I have no idea of what may "waste of time" mean in your head. I
> personally know no activity that i know doesn't imply a time
> consumption. "Waste" is a personal definition according to personal
> taste. I therefore challenge to prove that i'm wasting my time. No need
> to prove that you are wasting yours. I'm not interested in your own
> business.
> I admit to being a "Basic Skepticist" and a MYOB (Mind Your Own
> Business) worshipper.
I have no intention of proving anything! My intention is to is to
convey my own thoughts and to learn something from responses. Your
negativity is of little interest.
> > I must warn you that I make a practice of using words in their normative
> > meanings. I am a loss as to how else to convey my thoughts. Help me out
> > here, Tonguessy!.
>
> Are you sure you (or i) can convey anything? "Normative meaning"
> conveys nothing to me. May i suggest you S.Beckett or E.Jonesco? "Bald
> Soprano" remains one of my favorite, ever.
So you are enamoured by a genre that some have characterised as "a
pause ...., followed by a non sequitor". Your posts lack only the
pause!
> Don't ask for help, please. Time shortage makes it temporarily not
> available.
"Temporarily' not available ? Great! I have time. I await with bated
breath!!
Zinnic
.
zinnic
Reiner wrote:
> You could be right about your comparison between the inverse square law
> and compassion. In fact, you can see living, breathing examples of
> that comparison all around you. I'm not sure I get what you're
> suggesting though; if someone were to increase their distance, would
> that person lose compassion or transform that compassion into an
> intellectual exercise?
I used distance ambiguously in my inverse square analogy. What I
really meant by distance was the degree of identification involved in a
situation. For example, the different responses elicited by a baby
starving on one's doorstep and a baby starving in Darfur.
> Problem with those cold, emotionless thoughts lies in behavior it can
> usually produce. Someone who is dissociated from society and lacks any
> compassion for his fellow beings is like a cancer to the species.
> Maybe you could compare individuals to the cells within our body. Many
> cells with different functions acting together to form a human being.
> Individual human beings with different functions (strengths) acting
> together to form a society. Ideally, you'd hope that things would run
> perfectly and flawlessly, but that hardly would be natural. Communism
> doesn't work because a governing body tells the people what their
> [limited] choices are. Capitalism doesn't work because focusing
> entirely on profit margins, yield spreads, and bottom-lines usually
> leaves the big corporations or rich on top and the poor on the bottom.
>
> There has to be a middle ground.
I agree, but how to reach it? There's the rub!
Maybe doing away with copyrights
> would not be the best thing because just as profiteering can hinder
> development and advancement, taking things to the other extreme would
> be just as detrimental. Perhaps the copyright laws should go back
> towards where they were and limit the copyright of an original work to
> the life of the originator. That way one would have their motivation
> in securing intellectual property for the duration of their life while
> at their death, opening the product/idea/innovation up to be
> redeveloped and advanced. Perhaps once the originator of an idea or
> product passes on, that original idea/product should not be eligible to
> be re-copyrighted and should remain in the public domain. Seems like
> the most logical compromise.
Reasonable suggestions that need refining. But lawyers will not
refine but tear into them and rend reason into shreds.
Regards, Zinnic
Souvik
> > would not be the best thing because just as profiteering can hinder
> > development and advancement, taking things to the other extreme would
> > be just as detrimental. Perhaps the copyright laws should go back
> > towards where they were and limit the copyright of an original work to
> > the life of the originator. That way one would have their motivation
> > in securing intellectual property for the duration of their life while
> > at their death, opening the product/idea/innovation up to be
> > redeveloped and advanced. Perhaps once the originator of an idea or
> > product passes on, that original idea/product should not be eligible to
> > be re-copyrighted and should remain in the public domain. Seems like
> > the most logical compromise.
Here's a point I figure is an argument *against* my case for large
scale communism and open-source scenarios. I will put them in two
paragraphs below, but they are both the same principle.
1. Such scenarios are unstable to fluctuations. What I mean by that is,
if an individual or a small group begin to function as capitalists in a
largely socialist society, then they usually progress and accumulate
wealth faster. It becomes a runaway process. (Why it doesn't happen in
stable socialist states is because forces are maintained, by law and
police, against this tendency to degenerate into a natural capitalism.)
2. An economy that is entirely socialist can hardly ever keep up with
the innovation of a capitalist competitor. Which is why, goods from the
capitalist industry will seep in, no matter how strict you make
importation laws. And eventually, the people of socialism will see how
much better capitalism is and convert. This is just a demonstration of
point 1 on a large scale.
-Souvik
Tonguessy
zinnic wrote:
> Tonguessy wrote:
> > zinnic wrote:
> >
> > > I admit to being a "Fundamental Materialist"
> >
> > Do you practice Materialistic Fundamentalism?
>
> Yes! At least to the extent that I prefer there be some 'substance' to
> a discussion!
Unfortunately you fail to bring any "substance" to me. See "waste of
time"and "negativity" below. Pure mental constructs without any
"substance" (whetever this may mean)
>
> > > I find the Devil in the complexity of exact details!
> >
> > Necessary but useless items
>
> Parse some meaning into this response.
> You state (below) that you doubt your capability of conveying
> meaning. You should at least make the attempt, otherwise I can only
> assume that, in posting to this thread, you are simply pleasuring
> yourself..
Well, that was you who said we're wasting our time. I assume it means
we are not having fun. At the contrary having fun is the one and only
reason for me to post and read messages. Whether this means a good
conveyance is just another story.
>
>
> I have no intention of proving anything! My intention is to is to
> convey my own thoughts and to learn something from responses. Your
> negativity is of little interest.
>
Negativity? What would that mean, even vaguely? Does this imply that
you are positive maybe? Are you trying to prove this, darling?
> So you are enamoured by a genre that some have characterised as "a
> pause ...., followed by a non sequitor". Your posts lack only the
> pause!
That was a precise choice. I prefer this to cerebral pauses, which you
seem to adore.
>
> > Don't ask for help, please. Time shortage makes it temporarily not
> > available.
>
> "Temporarily' not available ? Great! I have time. I await with bated
> breath!!
>
> Zinnic
> .
Take a looong breath and relax, zinnic. Bated breath for a long time
could be fatal esp at your venerable age. I don't want a widow to sue
me online.
Just to pacify your anxious feelings i tell you that you are the first
of the list. In the meanwhile a good professional (psychologist,
psychiatrist, spiritual advisor, shaman, neurologist, sorcerer etc...)
can do.
Take care
Tonguessy
zinnic
What is your problem Tonguessy? Do you no longer have anything coherent
to share with me and other readers of this thread? I can only assume
that with this post you are simply amusing yourself (having fun) with
total disregard to conveying anything.
In this post you address me with terms such as: "darling, cerebral
pauses, venerable age, anxious feelings, first on the list (whatever do
you mean?)". I take it that getting personal is your idea of fun? Or
are you just in one of your snits?
You seem to have a wide experience of therapists (psychologist,
psychiatrist, spiritual advisor, shaman, neurologist, sorcerer etc...)
but I decline your advice to consult with them. Obviously they have
not helped you! Probably because you spent too much time with your
shamans and sorcerers!
Are we having fun yet?
Regards...Zinnic
Tonguessy
> What is your problem Tonguessy? Do you no longer have anything coherent
> to share with me and other readers of this thread? I can only assume
> that with this post you are simply amusing yourself (having fun) with
> total disregard to conveying anything.
The problem seems to be coherence and what it means to me and you. I'm
coherently speaking, but you fail to see any coherence in my words.
On the other hand i see no coherence when you say that you (being a
"Fundamental Materialist") bring some "substance" in your speech while
you don't explain what "substance" means, and you say i'm "wasting my
time" or you talk about my "negativity" which are just YOUR mental
construct.
I therefore ask you to explain what these obfuscating words mean and in
which context they can make sense, eventually.
>
> In this post you address me with terms such as: "darling, cerebral
> pauses, venerable age, anxious feelings, first on the list (whatever do
> you mean?)". I take it that getting personal is your idea of fun?
That was my reply to your definitions of myself (again: wasting my
time, being negative, posting non sequiturs etc..).
I've always enjoyed hand grenades tournaments, yes, they are fun.
>
> Are we having fun yet?
> Regards...Zinnic
WE? How can i know if YOU are having fun, Z?
Take care
Tonguessy
goozlefotz
The purpose of language is to communicate. As far as I can tell,
Tonguessy looks for every possible reason NOT to communicate, finding
all flaws in the incoming message and using these flaws as the reason
to reject it. All messages generated by humans have flaws. The idea
is to apply corrective measures so that the message can be read in
spite of the flaws. So far, Tonguessy is wasting bandwidth by
pretending to want to communicate while playing games with us. Get
real or get lost!
goozlefotz
zinnic wrote:
> Tonguessy wrote:
> > Wonderful. Would you mind to let me know what "human nature" and
> > "society" exactly mean and where's their epistemological difference?
> >
>
> In epistemologiy, what something "exactly' means is IMO a search for
> the non-existent 'Holy Grail". As to the meanings generally conveyed
> by "human nature" and "society", I refer you to any dictionary of the
> English language.
> Zinnic
Clearly written, Zinnic! See my latest to Tonguessy...
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> > What is your problem Tonguessy? Do you no longer have anything coherent
> > to share with me and other readers of this thread? I can only assume
> > that with this post you are simply amusing yourself (having fun) with
> > total disregard to conveying anything.
>
> The problem seems to be coherence and what it means to me and you. I'm
> coherently speaking, but you fail to see any coherence in my words.
> On the other hand i see no coherence when you say that you (being a
> "Fundamental Materialist") bring some "substance" in your speech while
> you don't explain what "substance" means, and you say i'm "wasting my
> time" or you talk about my "negativity" which are just YOUR mental
> construct.
> I therefore ask you to explain what these obfuscating words mean and in
> which context they can make sense, eventually.
You know what these words mean. Semantic games are a cop out. Next you
will be asking what the meaning of "is" is!
> > In this post you address me with terms such as: "darling, cerebral
> > pauses, venerable age, anxious feelings, first on the list (whatever do
> > you mean?)". I take it that getting personal is your idea of fun?
>
> That was my reply to your definitions of myself (again: wasting my
> time, being negative, posting non sequiturs etc..).
All of which were directed at the content of your posts not at defining
you as a person. You obviously don't see the difference!
> I've always enjoyed hand grenades tournaments, yes, they are fun.
> >
> > Are we having fun yet?
> > Regards...Zinnic
>
> WE? How can i know if YOU are having fun, Z?
>
Depends on what YOU mean by the words-"having fun"- and "in which
context they can make sense, eventually" As you can see, I now
understand your concept of philosophical discussion.
Zinnic
Tonguessy
zinnic wrote:
> > i see no coherence when you say that you (being a
> > "Fundamental Materialist") bring some "substance" in your speech while
> > you don't explain what "substance" means
> > which context they can make sense, eventually.
>
> You know what these words mean. Semantic games are a cop out. Next you
> will be asking what the meaning of "is" is!
>
"substance" into our conversation. Why am i "negative" for example? If
you still deny to substantiate your statements i see further
discussions with you utterly useless.
> > That was my reply to your definitions of myself (again: wasting my
> > time, being negative, posting non sequiturs etc..).
>
> All of which were directed at the content of your posts not at defining
> you as a person. You obviously don't see the difference!
Who's playing with semantics, now?
> > WE? How can i know if YOU are having fun, Z?
> >
> Depends on what YOU mean by the words-"having fun"- and "in which
> context they can make sense, eventually" As you can see, I now
> understand your concept of philosophical discussion.
>
> Zinnic
YOU can never know MY context and the meaning i attach to every event
in my life. Full stop. My "having fun" has a strict personal meaning
which (i suppose, but i cannot be sure about it) you probably ignore.
The exact same principle applies to myself: i surely do not know what
your cultural beliefs make you say "this is fun". Is this such an alien
concept to grasp? What has philosophy to do with such statement?
Tonguessy
goozlefotz
You need to tell him/her that it means you are not enjoying the
conversation. Since it is an idiomatic expression, it was probably
unfamiliar to Tonguessy.
zinnic
Tonguessy wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
> > > i see no coherence when you say that you (being a
> > > "Fundamental Materialist") bring some "substance" in your speech while
> > > you don't explain what "substance" means
> > > I therefore ask you to explain what these obfuscating words mean and in
> > > which context they can make sense, eventually.
> >
> > You know what these words mean. Semantic games are a cop out. Next you
> > will be asking what the meaning of "is" is!
> >
> Again more mental game. All i'm asking you is to bring some of your
> "substance" into our conversation. Why am i "negative" for example? If
> you still deny to substantiate your statements i see further
> discussions with you utterly useless.
Now that makes sense!
Snip
Z.
zinnic
You are probably correct. However I found it impossible to touch base
with him(or did the "darling" come from a she?) . I really had no idea
where (s)he is coming from philosophically. Solipsist?.
Regards.. Zinnic