I just scouted out sci.phil.tech and sci.phil.meta
Bryce
So after some discussion in alt.philosophy.objectivism about
how to get away from the riff-raff by moving into a more
upper-class hierarchy, I decided to scan the current groups
in the sci.philosophy.* hierarchy to see what kind of
neighborhood it was and how amenable they might be to new
neighbors.
Somewhat to my dismay (since I had just finished telling the
o(O)bjectivists that the sci.phil.* people would royally
snub them) I have learned that the sci.phil.* neighborhood
itself has fallen on hard times. My scanners detected one
or two good threads (free will, some philosophy of science),
a large population of transcendental meditation flame-war
cross-posts, a dash of kookery (there are several people
hanging out here who have disproven modern physics yadda
yadda yadda) and little more.
In fact, alt.philosophy.objectivism seems to have a
significantly higher proportion of actual, serious,
multi-party topical threads going. (Note that my perception
of a.p.o. and yours are probably different since I do not
see any a.p.o. post that is crossposted to politics or
religion newsgroups, nor do I see Ornitho-anything.)
So, what does this mean? Well, I dunno. Probably the
news.groups people will roundly reject
sci.philosophy.objectivism anyway. Also it looks like,
since cyberspace has approximately a zero-dimensional
topology, that it is going to be hard to move away from the
riff-raff.
Bryce out
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01
iQCVAwUBMRZ0N/WZSllhfG25AQFqJgQAgbNb0OZRh2J6o0keXf+gD6OnIvg9yXPX
zwjcJ/bhC0hp6BepKYNhr1vaQ6L0IbI23XGKbi69U9+x1iJcJiULuDanVsQWSGMK
Cvnd4J/AXiBcNyeA/PYD2KY6ISrgwnTuDpiUXwCmg5nWWiMEMmof4llIntAQRxfp
0vLMM4n2pEk=
=uXL6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brad Aisa
[...]
>Somewhat to my dismay (since I had just finished telling the
>o(O)bjectivists that the sci.phil.* people would royally
>snub them) I have learned that the sci.phil.* neighborhood
>itself has fallen on hard times. My scanners detected one
>or two good threads (free will, some philosophy of science),
>a large population of transcendental meditation flame-war
>cross-posts, a dash of kookery (there are several people
>hanging out here who have disproven modern physics yadda
>yadda yadda) and little more.
>So, what does this mean? Well, I dunno.
Idoo. It means that anarchic premises will lead to degenerate results.
It is yet another affirmation of the law of identity, and the fact that man
has a nature and needs, and that no amounts of fervent dedication to an
arbitrary irrational ideal can make it work.
Clue in to objectivity, if you want to prevent another century of genocidal
slaughter like the 20th. "Communism is good in theory, but people are just
too selfish to practice it." This is identical in epistemological
fundamentals to any defense which could be made of Usenet.
> Also it looks like,
>since cyberspace has approximately a zero-dimensional
>topology, that it is going to be hard to move away from the
>riff-raff.
Check your premises. The answer does not lie in mathematical theory, but in
philosophy. Ayn Rand spent her career explaining and demonstrating the
importance of philosophy, and the absolutism of reality and man's nature.
She wasn't kidding.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
James E. Prescott
: I have learned that the sci.phil.* neighborhood
: itself has fallen on hard times. My scanners detected one
: or two good threads (free will, some philosophy of science),
: a large population of transcendental meditation flame-war
: cross-posts, a dash of kookery (there are several people
: hanging out here who have disproven modern physics yadda
: yadda yadda) and little more.
: In fact, alt.philosophy.objectivism seems to have a
: significantly higher proportion of actual, serious,
: multi-party topical threads going.
I'd like to ask Jason and those who like his idea of moving to a
better neighborhood to re-state--or re-think a bit more
precisely--just what it is they all hope to accomplish.
I don't mean getting rid of the Neo-Techers. We all wish they'd go
away but that isn't likely to happen in a more-or-less open forum,
so why worry about it? If saving yourself the few keystokes it takes
to bypass postings from NeoTechers and the other "riff-raff" you
don't approve of is what you have in mind, there are easy ways
already available and gauranteed to work.
You could start a private mailing list by sending your "postings" as
email to selected people and asking them to forward on to whomever
they think appropriate. If you want something less open and more
organized there are perfectly good moderated mailing lists
available. OSG (if you can stomach being told whom you may and may
not correspond with) and MDOP are both filled with interesting,
focused discussion on Objectivism.
So the question remains, what is it, ultimately, you want to
accomplish? Why do you participate in open-forum discussions on the
Internet and why do you think you'll be able to accomplish your
goals better in a forum that has fewer people you don't approve of?
For myself, I'm here because I enjoy it immensely. I'm an
Objectivist and I like writing about, learning about and defending
important truths. But I'm not out to save the world or even a few
souls. And I've never had a killfile nor ever seen the need for one.
I'm not strongly opposed to Jason's idea, BTW. I just wonder why. A
smaller neighborhood than ALT might be marginally more convenient,
but would the grass be any greener? A moderater would reduce the
level of noise and thereby produce a higher percentage of quality
posts, but what for? If you want to see a larger overall number of
quality posts there's an obvious answer: post them.
Best Wishes, Jim P. (jep...@nextel.net)
Jim Klein
>It means that anarchic premises will lead to degenerate results.
>It is yet another affirmation of the law of identity, and the fact
>hat man has a nature and needs, and that no amounts of fervent
>dedication to an arbitrary irrational ideal can make it work.
How about to an *intentional* irrational ideal? Something along the
lines, say, that huge numbers of people are suddenly going to
understand the value of rationality, have a basis for thinking that
values are good, and develop a self-confidence which will stop them
from looting their neighbors. Do you suppose that "fervent
dedication", maybe by some college grads, could make this work?
jk
Jason Kuznicki
jep...@ios.com (James E. Prescott) wrote:
>
>I'd like to ask Jason and those who like his idea of moving to a
>better neighborhood to re-state--or re-think a bit more
>precisely--just what it is they all hope to accomplish.
What I hope to accomplish is to have a newsgroup that is free
of the annoyance of having to killfile hundreds of off-topic
posts and inconsiderate posters. I would also like a place
where non-Objectivists from outside the regular circle of
a.p.o. can drop in and see Objectivists and others legitimately
interested in Objectivism engaging in civil and reasoned
discussion.
There is a fair amount of civil and reasoned discussion on
a.p.o. already, but for those newbies who lack killfiles, it
may seem as if there is no intelligent life here. As well as
increasing the signal to noise ratio, a moderated group in a
non-alt hierarchy would be very good PR for Objectivism: It
would show the casual observer that the debate over Ayn Rand's
ideas isn't dominated by crackpots and those who don't know
how to communicate without four letter words.
>I don't mean getting rid of the Neo-Techers. We all wish they'd go
>away but that isn't likely to happen in a more-or-less open forum,
>so why worry about it?
Easy: A moderated group would eliminate them permanently.
>You could start a private mailing list by sending your "postings" as
>email to selected people and asking them to forward on to whomever
>they think appropriate. If you want something less open and more
>organized there are perfectly good moderated mailing lists
>available. OSG (if you can stomach being told whom you may and may
>not correspond with) and MDOP are both filled with interesting,
>focused discussion on Objectivism.
The problem with these is that they are not public, and I think the
public nature of Usenet--postings can be seen by any and all--makes
it a good potential forum for people learning about Objectivism.
That potential has been all but destroyed on a.p.o., but it can
be reclaimed.
>So the question remains, what is it, ultimately, you want to
>accomplish? Why do you participate in open-forum discussions on the
>Internet and why do you think you'll be able to accomplish your
>goals better in a forum that has fewer people you don't approve of?
It's not a matter of merely excluding people I don't "approve" of.
It is very much a matter of being able to discuss with the people
that I *do* approve of. When I see that the people who contributed
to a.p.o. and made it great in times past are leaving, I believe
that something should be done.
>For myself, I'm here because I enjoy it immensely. I'm an
>Objectivist and I like writing about, learning about and defending
>important truths. But I'm not out to save the world or even a few
>souls. And I've never had a killfile nor ever seen the need for one.
I'm not out to save the world either--But having more Objectivists
in the world is in my long-term self-interest. I doubt that a.p.o.
does as much to attract people to Objectivism as a moderated group
would.
>I'm not strongly opposed to Jason's idea, BTW. I just wonder why.
I hope I've provided you with the answers you wanted.
Jason Kuznicki http://b61718.student.cwru.edu/ jt...@po.cwru.edu
"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of
physical force from social relationships--thus establishing the
principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they must do so
only by means of *reason*."--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government"
James E. Prescott
: I hope I've provided you with the answers you wanted.
Good answers, all.
Success would depend on finding the right place and on the quality
of the moderater and the methodology employed. I'd second (or third
or fourth) the nomination of Paul Hsieh, if only he were willing.
And I'd recommend that postings be accepted by default i.e., not
require his interventation (i.e., no pre-pub review) but that he be
able to respond to complaints or obvious problems by removing them
and blocking future postings from the source.
Might work. Might be worth a try, with Paul if he could be coaxed
another with volunteer. If not, there always APO. Whatever the
faults, it's not dull.