;b~ George Holmes Howison, "The Limits of Evolution" Fwd: [LS:10938] A ("terrible") SODV Up(-poetry-)date |Presbyt/e "Unconditionally"|^&B++

[^d is a person who keeps sxlf-council_DejMqe1WBtEQ]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lilasquad/1M5dncUBglk/59UgV43FAwAJ
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 7:39:16 PM UTC-6, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:

John,



23.10.2015, 20:29, John Carl kirjoitti:
> Tuk,
>
> For some reason, October always overwhelms me.  But I've been
> following your posts and cogitating while roofing.
>
> Item #1.  My rant against "sloth" was entirely self-directed, I assure
> you.  I am the very e

http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/?URL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNCwIHwSt8RU

pito

Papal Year Of Divine Mercy, Dec 8, 2015 - Nov 20, 2016

me of this sin and your outpouring of work
> has shamed me tremendously.  However, I'm going to have to wait a
> while longer.  October, in California, linger.  And lingers.  We don't
> really get winter full, til March.  This year being an El Nino, might
> be different.
>



T:

Funny that the rant about "sloth" should be self-directed. Rationally, I
think you're telling the truth although I don't believe you and wouldn't
believe most people in a situation like this. And I wonder why.

I guess I've grown accustomed to expecting myself to be more aware of
the motives of others than they themselves are. That might be a risk
factor for paranoia but I haven't felt that way lately.



>> If we wanted to take a special measure against this ambiguity we could
>> rename "subjects" and "objects" as "processes" and "objects".
> Jc:  oops.  Sorry to reign upon your parade, but all objects ARE
> processes.  You'd be better off renaming subjects and object as
> dynamic processes and static processes.  imho.



Tuk:



Objects and processes are not synonyms or else we, in all likelihood,
would have nothing to discuss about this topic.

Objectification is a process. When you objectify something you do so
regardless of its essence. Maybe the one who objectifies will cause
suffering due to objectifying the wrong thing. And maybe it's
cognitively too expensive to think of rocks as processes if you don't
plan to stay around long enough to observe any progress in that process.
So, you definitely might need to objectify sometimes.

However, I guess I do get how you might be expressing yourself in
addition to the other meanings your reply conveys. You're married and
you've raised three daughters. I suppose you'd have become aware of how
women are discouraged from perceiving reality as objects and how they
themselves hate objectification because it's imposed on them but, due to
feminism, they're also encouraged to resist it. This is not necessarily
contradictory - just demanding or difficult for all women and most men.

A woman might get objectified anyway so that she doesn't realize it. If
so, the one performing the objectification arguably had an intellectual
right to that woman in a way someone else might not have had. In fact,
this process makes intelligent men in Christian cultures so powerful
that the have-nots have to enforce a social "caste system" to protect
themselves!

This so-called caste system is not consciously enforced by those on top
of the hierarchy. Instead, the system merely facilitates them to get
what they want once they manage to identify what kind of women are
sexually available for them. But if the totality of the kind of women
sexually available for a man is indiscriminate he'd have a rational
reason to expect any kind of a woman to be sexually available for him,
even if not right now. But married women are intended to be considered
out-of-bounds for unmarried men.

The caste system works only if the have-nots develop an identity of
have-not so that such women would usually avoid having sex with
intelligent men and such men would usually avoid getting in the way of
intelligent men. This way only more intelligent and/or sensitive women,
whose objectification would be intellectually challenging, remain
sexually available for aristocratic intelligent men. This usually
encourages them to keep developing their most prominent abilities. In
fact, many of them might have to abandon their academic career in order
to significantly expand the variety of women who'd be at least somewhat
safe company for them. Upon doing so they'd at least temporarily fall
out of favor among the women who used to be available for them because
those women would feel they didn't consider them good enough. If those
women would've been considered objectively desirable in the community at
large because of their looks, wealth, heritage or status I think the
only way a man could deal with having really loved something like that
but having lost it for good would be not to have anything like that in
the first place and succeed in blaming others for that. Then he might
end up insane because of having rejected so many things he'd have really
needed had they not been so risky. But if he didn't become completely
and permanently insane he'd have some hope of being able to take such an
opportunity later once he would've managed to do something about why he
didn't take it immediately.

Many religions mention paradise because many people would have liked it
to be reasonable for these men to take such opportunities even though it
really wasn't. Religions would define paradise in terms of how could the
needs of such people finally be met. They'd make such definitions to
indirectly and respectfully convery an understanding of how such a loss
could be quite terrible and nobody might be sure what to do about it.

In a monoculture with a pyramid hierarchy of social classes, all kinds
of women might be available for the highest ranking men but the second
highest ranking women might have reasons to avoid such men. The second
highest ranking men would consider the influence of the highest ranking
men to reduce the desirability of a woman as a mate. The women would
have no idea how to spend time with such men at first but once they got
a clue the second highest ranking men might consider the women spoiled.
This means the woman should be confident she can rise in rank or
comfortable risking losing her previous rank even though she might have
liked to keep it. If she can't do either maybe she should keep some
distance to the aristocrat man or be kept at some distance if she can't
control herself.

Women who fail to develop a have-not identity despite being expected to
do so are bullied but they might be the only people willing to have sex
with an intelligent man whose needs have temporarily been ignored by the
rest of the community. He needs to keep going somehow for a chance to
get in favor once again. But sex with lowest-ranking women is risky
because lowest-ranking men are more likely to have STDs. Furthermore,
lowest ranking women might attract those knowingly infected men who
wouldn't quite mind infecting a person they'd consider clueless even
though they wouldn't willingly risk infecting someone they'd truly
respect. The infection might always appear to be an expression of
passion instead of an expression of disrespect but needing something
like that in order to feel passion might decrease a person's sense of
self-worth.

Because of honor issues, infected lowest ranking women may be unusually,
shamelessly and gracefully careful about not infecting a high-ranking
man they have sex with despite showing no interest towards power issues
otherwise. That would include safe sex practices and might even include
a modest exaggeration of safety measures. Their low status would make
them more likely to be motivated to act in response to a perception of
danger, but this means they are probably able to act gracefully despite
fear. Virtually nobody is immune to fear so this grace is a good thing
they might be able to teach others by way of example. Some of these
people might be brave in a way that might make them so charismatic they
perhaps needn't have other remarkable qualities in order to attract or
seduce a mate who is impressive at least physically. That they might
have such qualities anyway might be just a coincidence. But they
wouldn't even need to attract an impressive mate to impress people who
have access to generally more desirable mates than they do. They could
also be impressive as themselves.

Without the caste system the have-not men might end up with few sexual
encounters because most women and top men would initially be fine with
women having sex mostly with top men. Chimps actually do this. Even Nazi
Germany didn't advocate such sexual fascism.

Humans do not always afford to behave this way because the top men and
all women would starve without having the less than maximally privileged
men maintain society. In order to maintain society the less than
maximally privileged women regards to desirability are expected to
commit to similar men as monogamous couples and ordinary families.

Women avoid thinking in terms of this caste system and consider men who
impose it on them to have failed to understand femininity. They are
quite right in doing so which is why more informed men do not interfere
when women retaliate by humiliating the clueless men. However, women
don't carry out these punishments because they'd want to be right about
some fact. They do it because they're expected not to objectify people
but thinking in terms of that caste system is objectification of people.

A woman isn't necessarily discouraged from "perceiving reality as
objects" per se. She's just expected to be bad at that. If she does that
too well it may reduce her sex appeal, probably by suggesting she
wouldn't want to be a good mother.

A good mother would expect to know what her child needs but she'd also
be expected to make a child, at least a boy, think it was his own idea
to go get it. But after a child is no longer a baby such benevolent
mental manipulation would become impossibly complicated should the child
be thought of as an object. But a boy would benefit of such parenting
anyway. The only way to keep doing that would be to treat the boy as a
process instead of an object. That'd pretty much define "nurturing".

Whether a girl would benefit of such parenting is more of a cultural
issue. Being used to objectification and being fine with it would make a
woman vulnerable to individual men. But suppose women would be used to
being objectified and wouldn't suffer because of objectification per se.
Also, suppose men wouldn't treat women badly despite women being quite
defenceless.

That would seem pretty much like a win-win situation in theory,
especially considering a certain scientific study according to which
testosterone makes people of any sex decide more fairly. That study
would seem to indicate that even though there are statistical reasons to
expect men to do more bad things than women, men probably make more just
decisions than women if they understand the difference between good and
bad in the first place. Furthermore, they mutually enforce a shared
rational understanding of moral values on each other. But of course it's
possible that this scientific study was just too simplistic and naive to
detect some of the factors that justified the women's choices. We don't
necessarily want to only count on science with regards to this topic.
Maybe it would do good to reflect on some personal experience.

I think I was raised so that much scientific ability was passed on to me
not as education but as family lore and heritage. When my parents
noticed I had made mistakes they pointed them out. Also, when I
expressed myself ambiguously or not clearly and simply, my mother would
have expected me to be able to explain what I meant but my father would
have expected himself to either understand what I meant or not.

To have them both present at the same time was so confusing that only in
retrospect have I been able to understand how important it was. I felt
like the family was full of double standards I was expected not to
notice. But then I realized nobody else liked those double standards,
either, and that if I could figure out what they are and make a great
effort, the double standards would be reduced into one standard everyone
would truly accept so that they'd believe in it even if I weren't around
and they'd never need to think of me in order to believe in it. This way
I wouldn't become dependent of having them like me: they'd do as I wish
because they'd feel it's their own idea to do so. And that would
probably make them better at doing it.

My father was the intellectual authority of our home. I think he became
not very outgoing after realizing that people benefit of his
intellectual judgement more than he benefits of expressing it - that
most people are unable to return the favor by doing anything specific
because they just don't have any particular thing he'd really care for.
But there is also evidence that this was not always the state of
affairs. However, I think he might have used to feel that way sometimes,
perhaps a long time ago. That's how I sometimes feel about myself,
anyway. But I think my father also thought that if he'd teach me to
judge like he would, that judgement would stay in the family and if he
doesn't pass that on to someone it will cease to be.

Our family life wasn't austere but it was kind of simple. As a young boy
I did have lots of toys to play with but many boys were welcome to come
play with them and me. So many came it wouldn't have occurred to me to
wish for more. Virtually nothing was stolen before toys got replaced by
girls. After I had anything to do with girls some things got stolen but,
I recall, ... were put back to where they were supposed to be after I
had looked away. Then I thought I prefer solitude over stressing about
things I didn't want to think about. I also thought there's nothing
wrong about that if the research I can make that way is important. As a
teenager I had hobbies that were very challenging but not very
expensive. But a solitary lifestyle made me very unhappy so I moved to a
big city where envious people would be less likely to bother me just
because I'm not asexual.

When I was a teenager I didn't realize I was unhappy because I had no
sexual or romantic partners. I didn't need to realize that yet. I needed
to get to know my surroundings. It wouldn't have really occurred to me
to take an emotional approach to how divorce, cheating, alcoholism,
violence, rejection, habitual disrespect and other such issues would
affect a family. I wasn't even afraid of them. I approached them as
artistic, humoristic and intellectual exercises - in real life. I didn't
expect to feel like I'd hurt someone by doing that.

I'd hang around with kids of my age who'd been affected by such issues,
and I'd usually know about the issues, and I wouldn't really know how
they felt, but I still wouldn't offend them (especially if I did know
about the issues). Instead, for some reason - probably because of a
combination of intellect, charisma and character - they seemed to think
I provided a fresh viewpoint into their situation when others just got
awkward and wanted to talk about something else, or even worse, rejected
them.

They could talk with me about what happened to them as if both they and
I were normal people. And they liked to do so because I didn't know what
they felt, so that didn't prevent me from perceiving the black humor or
the scarce beauty that had been inherent to their situation even though
that situation was terrible. It was important for them that a person
didn't need to have experienced that in order to respect them. Some of
them had made professionals cry and start showing YouTube videos to them
in order to have them shut up because even hearing about their
experiences is too much for the professional although the victim
(perhaps a victim of mere circumstances) really experienced it and has
to deal with it.

Those small bits of tough beauty hidden under opaque layers of apparent
indifference and hostility are all they have to build on. Some sure were
doing their best so that even I could learn something from how they were
doing it. These still had a remarkable amount of humor left. But some
others wanted to die but kept living out of what seemed like an
obligation. They sometimes seemed to give unusually bad lessons on how
to do things. Sometimes the only way in which those people make sense is
inherent to what they just did, not how they did it. They might appear
dangerous because of how cheerful they are despite seeming to have
little to laugh about. Not everyone would trust them because of that and
they wouldn't necessarily want that, either. But they might want it
sometimes.

Because of my charisma such people, too, might consider their terrible
experiences kind of harmonious after I have done so. And this surely has
at least the potential to heal. But they would not want me to do
anything to figure out whether it really did heal. And I didn't reveal I
didn't know what they felt because I knew how they felt despite having
never felt that way myself. I didn't pretend something I'm not, either,
because I wasn't even aware of the difference between us.

If I hadn't understood the way they feel my arrogant behavior would have
quickly motivated them to punish me in some way. They wouldn't have
liked to punish me because they'd have difficulty believing in good
should I fail the challenge. But the challenge had to bear a strong
semblance to a real one at the very least in order to be worth anything
to them in terms of having the capacity to heal. Sometimes it had to at
least resemble a mortal challenge. Someone else might have failed by
freaking out or by being unprepared and unable to handle an unexpected
situation. But consciously preparing for bad things signals low social
status so too much of that can also be bad. It may make you actually
believe your status is low when, in fact, people would prefer you to
believe your status is high status but only so that you'd have also
earned that.

I'm not the only one to have experienced something like this. I'm just
pointing out that I can't be good at this kind of activity if I take
inappropriate delight in it because then I'm likely to get carried away
and fail some challenge I'd prefer not to fail. Most people don't prefer
to live like this and with good reason. It's stressful not to even be
sure which challenges have actually been presented and which ones have
not been.

When I was exploring the world as a teenager I probably didn't use to
experience my participation like others did. I felt like I was proving
there's no real evil in the world. Most of the time, anyway. And there
wasn't any evil back then because if I hadn't explored my society when I
was younger I wouldn't know how to contribute. You see, there's never
evil in a child's world and that's why we must protect children from evil.

In my opinion, adults aren't supposed to treat their childhood
experiences as if they included anything evil. They do so only if others
pressure them into doing so. This results in them having what I'd
consider mental problems but they might think they are sane. They may
recover from these problems if they forget about the bad things but in
that case they turn vulnerable towards experiences that serve as
reminders. In an unfortunate coincidence, such a reminder could destroy
their happiness for weeks or more if it would result in a bad outcome in
a situation that already was stressful to begin with.

Not anyone would agree with me about this. But I'd consider a
disagreeing person crushed and would expect her to surprise me with a
tough facade before revealing something like that about herself in a
nonchalant manner. This way I'd know I'm taking at least a small risk if
I comment anything about this although I perhaps should do so anyway.
But should any disagreements surface it should be obvious to me they
cannot be negotiated and that I should realize this is a sensitive
matter but not make a fuss of it.

Some people would find it hard to have fun with such demanding, possibly
dangerous people but precisely because of that they might be nearly
dying to have fun and be awesome company. However, they may also
perceive fun in terms of power issues. They may have such tough
reputation that in some way they are risking it by openly having any
kind of fun with someone. They might consider themselves so damaged it
couldn't or even shouldn't be safe for them to have fun anymore.

These people may present a challenge that might seem to involve some
kind of a "do or die" situation. It might be that even literally but
hopefully it only feels like that and is that only metaphorically: in
terms of how much respect to expect from this person should you run into
each other again. But it would be conductive of happiness to be
sometimes able to think of these experience in terms of some other
aspect than mere survival.

In school there was once quite a reasonable excercise in physical
education. We drove with our bikes on the side of the road, in that
really narrow area that's intended for pedestrians and bikers. We did
that only once. It makes sense to do that only once because the teachers
would be in trouble in case of an accident they might have been unable
to prevent despite doing their best. But if the student would perform
such an exercise once anyway they'd have done something like that at
least once before they'd have to do that while stressed, even drunk or
otherwise not at their best.

There's some adrenaline involved in having a truck pass you at a
distance of twenty centimeters or so at eighty kilometres per hour.
You'll quickly learn to appreciate to be warranted in expecting all
drivers to be familiar with their truck because you really can't do much
else than wear a helmet and trust truckers after making sure they can at
least see you.

I used to bike a lot but all that time I was at least slightly confused
about whether I'm supposed to wear a helmet or not. It made my scalp
itch and seemed to make people tell me stop wearing it in a manner that
seemed well-meaning. Eventually I thought I don't need to wear one if I
don't want to but by that time I'd already dropped the habit of biking.
I don't miss it that much despite having good memories of biking. I'd be
afraid of seeming superficial in an attempt to acquire any more such
good memories. I'd consider myself more likely than average to forget
how to enjoy any simple thing in life due to so many more extreme
experiences that might be at risk of overshadowing them.

I often prefer to contribute without exploring. I expect myself to
already be somewhat knowledgeable of my surroundings. There are
exceptions. However, I exercise caution because I don't know how to
trust other people not to consider my unrestrained contribution
arrogant, offensive or worse. I don't know how to count on that because
if I saw someone else behave like I'd frequently want to, I might think
they're out of their minds and perhaps need to be stopped immediately.

Often, when I tell about myself to strange women, they seem to become
baffled by the fact that a person like me exists. Despite being
flattering this is also just a little bit boring because I already know
this may be unique to them and it may take time to get over it and they
might not want to talk with me anymore because they might not know what
to say. That's boring because I'd have liked us to be equals but now
that it turns out I seem somehow superior, I experience an outcome that
might be worse for me than if we had been equal. Admittedly, it's a safe
outcome so I can't complain.

Now, if my very existence didn't so frequently baffle ordinary women I
might expect to be able not to think twice about doing something I want
to do. Instead of thinking, I could just do it. But I *don't* do it. In
fact, I keep struggling to even remember to think twice because I seem
to never get to do it - but I'd hate myself if I got a chance to do it
but didn't realize that quickly enough. Maybe I'd just be so unprepared
I'd let the opportunity slip away. I'd just walk away in long steps
thinking the kind of things you'd expect me to be thinking of all the
time. Things that usually don't include you except perhaps in a way I
wouldn't expect you to enjoy because I don't think I would. I feel I
need to be unpleasant to keep people at a distance because I wouldn't
expect everyone to understand why it's better for them not to quite know
me. To be sure, maybe many people just pretend they don't know me. But I
wouldn't know what to do with being known by them so I don't want to
think about that possibility too often.

How could I blame a baffled woman for not having sex with me? If she's
baffled it means she doesn't know whether I'm for real. Perhaps she
wouldn't know whether anyone saying such things about himself is for
real. Then men could have sex with her by lying to her. If that happened
she'd motivate men to become good liars and she doesn't want to make
such a contribution to culture.

Sometimes I didn't exercise good taste in whatever artistic, humoristic
or intellectual approach I took with regards to someone else's
situation. If I had done that too often people would have kind of
"crushed my dreams" like they do to almost everyone, except the last one
or few they "forget" to crush. And although they vaguely realize they
didn't crush everyone that doesn't matter to them because they don't
really believe in crushing everyone. They just passed on the fact that
they themselves had already been crushed.

And whatever was crushed is no longer an object of volition. Usually the
only voluntary choice left regarding what was crushed is whether to
crush or not to crush that in someone else. Usually the only remaining
knowledge of what was crushed is identity: the crushed can vaguely sense
if someone is behaving in a way they themselves can't because they were
crushed. This is a small but crucial difference between the crushed and
those who never had what was crushed.

How does this pertain to parenting?

In order to perform his gender role, a boy is expected to be able and
willing to objectify. This is because objectification is fast and
efficient and, combined with rationality, makes it possible to channel
animalistic drive into rather complicated activity involving possibly
fragile things. Other people are quite unlikely to even get hurt despite
the intensity of the drive although they're likely to get ignored
whenever it's not obvious how they might contribute to the intended
activity.

In retrospect, it seems like my mother would crush me slightly whenever
it made perfect sense to objectify something and I didn't. If she was
wrong then I could objectify her by pointing that out, but that was not
contrary to her parenting goals. Instead, that was what I would've been
supposed to do. I would've also been expected to do it in a playful or
experimental but friendly and constructive manner. Many of the things
she tried to teach me seemed impossible to comprehend for a surprisingly
long time but while attempting to understand her I tended to end up
doing something at least slightly more useful than I otherwise would've.
I was also oblivious of attempting or even wanting to please my mother
whereas with my father it would've been obvious that we did please each
other by indicating we understand and pay attention to a scientific or
cultural context we're sharing. Living a seemingly simple life in a
dignified manner was possible because we could take delight in obvious
things that were readily available for us within the context we could
share. The virtue inherent to these things was obvious for us and we'd
do our best to prevent power issues from developing between us, because
these obvious things weren't obvious for everyone else. And they
wouldn't have become obvious for others even if we had told others about
them. Many just wouldn't have understood what we'd have meant. But those
things were among the few things we still really cared for. And I guess
to us it seemed like many people had nothing like that. So we thought if
we lost that perhaps there'd be no way to replace it.

I felt permitted to be playful about potential power issues with my
mother. But I felt it would be wrong to display that attitude towards my
father. I think this was a division of labor issue more than anything
else. It was about having a routine way of doing something. This way we
could make sure that I do not decide, whether to correct without
hesitation or prefer not to correct, according to whether I'm angry with
someone, so that I could focus on always making the correction in a way
that's objectively the best I can do.

This routine discouraged me from playing social games. I might fail to
fulfill my mother's expectations with what would have seemed like total
impunity but we both would understand it is not aggression or violence
but mere pride, failure or resistance on my part. Such pride, failure or
resistance used to be tolerated of me at home except if I had become, or
was about to become, so arrogant I would've been considered likely to
take risks that aren't worth it.

Despite treating my mother like this I'd have preferred to conflict my
father only seriously and carefully. Conflicting my father when I was
angry at him was difficult for me to do in a manner I would have deemed
appropriate. But I would not let this difficulty make me conflict
someone else instead of him or to reveal nothing about myself to him.

Within a family it may be important to be able to know beforehand what
kind of things should you discuss with each family member and how. I
don't know how I was taught to do this. If I just recollect my own
experience, when I was a child I would sometimes but rarely, after a
long awkward silence, ask my father to leave for a moment in order to
express vulnerability to my mother. As far as I can tell, it was my own
desire to do so and not that of anyone else. It was never a problem. I'd
have never done that again had it been a problem even once.

When religions prescribe that the man should be the head of the
household they merely recommend performing the role assignment within a
family this way. It's not intended to describe the actual abilities of
the family members. It is a pattern the family members use to impose
expectations on each other. They shouldn't act out if the expectations
seem unwarranted but people aren't supposed to start a family with just
anyone, either.

Sometimes it is comforting not to have a choice, especially when one
needs to do something one doesn't want to. Apparently all children are
at least somewhat vulnerable - most are very. Since boys are expected to
hide this it may be comforting for them only to confide to certain
people. Having too many options regarding confidants might make it too
easy to objectify confidants - but upon being objectified the confidants
might objectify back, and unfortunately some possible ways to do so
would probably involve betraying confidence. So, as long as the
confidants stay in their role they're pretty much guaranteed to have
some way of objectifying the one who confided to them.

However, the confidant has the option of challenging the confidee so
that, should the confidee fail the challenge, he would suffer somehow,
but should the confidee pass the test the confidant would not need
anything else from the confidee in order to honourably maintain secrecy.
In all likelihood, if the secret is something embarrassing the confidant
would be burdened by having to resist the temptation to gossip. Carrying
such a burden without getting anything in return might be considered to
suggest lower status, which makes honor issues relevant.

But a mother could be quite immune to such honor issues when parenting
her son. Nevertheless, a mother perhaps should be mindful of the fact
that out of all people in the world she's probably best equipped to
challenge her son in a way he'd experience as extremely difficult but
that he would pass nevertheless. Such an experience would provide her
son warranted expectations about his ability to handle difficult
situations because he'd gain experience of how he reacts to stress or
conflict and how he solves problems.

If a mother doesn't parent her son this way he probably becomes less
aware of himself. But if she does parent him like this she risks having
her son turn out unable to deal with some challenge in an acceptable
manner. She might be willing and able to talk about such a failure. Or
not. It wouldn't be polite to ask. Instead of talking she might give a
clue that indicates she wouldn't exactly be surprised if you thought
critically of her. She'd perhaps be disappointed but not necessarily
surprised.

On a societal scale, it makes sense to perform this kind of a role
assignment in a uniform manner because then people will have shared
expectations of each other without knowing each other. If these
expectations are warranted people will be less uncertain when they begin
doing something together. They can start doing something right away
before getting to know each other.

People, who automatically assume nothing to be more important than
knowing each other well, would probably be considered to fail to perform
a masculine gender role. Such as, if you know somebody really hates you,
and you secretly go together into a place from which neither one of you
would be found, and that person produces a knife and stabs you, you will
know "well" that this is not an ethical person. But if you needed to
live more than to know that you'd have experienced a bad outcome.

Women, by default, do not like to approach danger with this attitude.
They'd rather approach danger in terms of aesthetics. They'd like to
assume that they survive dangerous situations because of their good
taste and charm. Such as, suppose a woman is wearing a certain shirt in
a picture in which she appears very attractive, and said picture is
circulated to many people. Then, suppose that woman borrows that shirt
to a mysterious but friendly acquaintance who leaves. The acquaintance
then sends a message to the woman that he doesn't wish to have anything
to do with her but she may go get her shirt back from a certain address.
Would the woman go?

The woman would think getting her shirt back would express bad taste
because she was already seen wearing that shirt in the picture that was
seen by so many people. Even if she lost the shirt people wouldn't just
unsee the picture of her wearing it. Even if it would've been just a
plain and ordinary shirt she'd think people can't keep themselves from
thinking about that picture if they see that shirt on her again, which
is why it got stolen in the first place. If it weren't a personal or
expensive shirt it would also be more likely to get stolen because the
act of stealing would appear less offensive and potentially more
communicative.

She wouldn't bother to get her shirt back because she might think maybe
that acquaintance is just so pathetic he's got nothing better to do than
to steal her shirt. But upon not going she might also avoid an ambush.
However, she needn't perceive the acquaintance as dangerous in order to
avoid a real ambush this way. So, by relying on aesthetics she both
might avoid an ambush and improve her self-esteem. And if the
acquaintance didn't even understand that he'd probably fail to place the
shirt into a place from which it would be worthwhile to retrieve - even
if he didn't have bad intentions.

No scientific method appears to suffice in teaching someone to perceive
reality in this aesthetic manner. But some people do that, others merely
expect an ambush and some do neither. And of these people, all of the
first type could be imposters who really are of the second type. But
this wouldn't prevent them from using their deceitful appearance for
some end because if someone pointed out their appearance is deceitful
he'd probably be wasting his time to interfere instead of doing
something out of his own initiative. But the imposter is probably acting
out of his own initiative.

The last of the aforementioned three types of people is more likely to
get murdered this way unless they lead a somewhat safe lifestyle that
involves avoiding trusting strangers but also not making an effort to
appear dangerous in words, gestures or body language. It would be
difficult for a stranger to tell how dangerous this kind of a person
really is and they wouldn't invite to challenge them.

Danger is inevitable and it might be preferable to avoid danger
aesthetically whenever possible because that allows one to gain more
than just survival. But if one relies only on aesthetics in order to
avoid danger one will probably trigger false alarms even if one
survives. This will make one's behavior erratic so that others will not
trust her judgement as much anymore.

In order to eliminate false alarms, one should interpret dangers
objectively ("more masculinely"), but in order to reflect on dangerous
experiences in a fruitful way one should interpret them aesthetically
("more femininely"). In a family the former is expected of a man and the
latter of a woman and these expectations are culturally uniform at least
in the West because people wouldn't have time to get to know each other
if something dangerous happened and they needed to react quickly.

However, gender roles as expectations are not always warranted.
Furthermore, sometimes they seem warranted when they aren't or
unwarranted when they are.

I wouldn't say I have difficulty feeling like an important person. Other
people usually sense I feel this way and play along. But they may feel
like I don't behave that way, which may make them challenge me. They
don't admit when they call me names, such as "sloth", but that doesn't
keep them from doing so.

I don't tend to find it morally reprehensible that women do this to me
because I wouldn't expect to trust their judgement that much. But if a
man I didn't know did that to me I'd be demanding of the quality of the
insult. I'd approach excellent insults casually but other insults within
codified goal-oriented impunity that is somewhat similar to Islam by
virtue of being as much as attitude as a system.

A great insult might strike me with awe but I don't expect anyone to
produce one though I can't be too sure about that, either. Most serious
insults aren't "great" or grand insults. And upon experiencing a grand
insult I might prefer not to admit it.

In our case, I had already decided to write when I launched my e-mail
client and read you had at least abrogatively not-called me a sloth. But
writing metaphysics is among the activities that make me not feel like a
sloth so I didn't want to associate to a sloth anyway, be that your
intention or not.

If a woman had done that to me I might have gotten more emotional about it.

Complete absence of danger dullens the senses and even the intellect.
The function of women in society, in my opinion, is to create perpetual
or frequent but moderate sense of danger in order to keep people focused
on those goals that really are important. And just sometimes someone
really needs to get badly hurt or even die in order to make the danger
actually feel in so many other situations in which nothing seriously bad
really happens - or at least we need to lie that people got hurt. Just
so that complacency wouldn't make people dull.

As a sidenote, some gnostic Christians believe the crucifiction of
Christ was this kind of a benevolent lie. A lie or not, this "warning
example" is the intended message of Christianity. Its function is to
make believers *diverge* from their religion instead of clinging to it.
Because, if they clung to *that* they'd just end up crucifying eveyone
who would've been worth a lot to the community! This is how Christianity
intends to invite Dynamic Quality. It is *not* animism.

But back to women. The whore-madonna-distinction needn't have anything
to do with sex and family. It can be a more abstract or emotional issue
- a quite abstract role assignment.

A woman in which a man would wish to emotionally invest ("madonna")
shouldn't disrespect the man. But if a woman a man does not wish to
emotionally invest in ("whore") does so to a man, that calls for a
slightly different reaction than a man doing so to another man, because
men don't expect to trust "whores" as much as other men. But a man
expects to trust his "madonna" more than other men.

In Islam, this manifests as respectful and well-meaning objectification
of women. In the West we used to do that, too. The woman is objectified
because, as a "madonna", the woman is intended as a method of
self-reflection for the man. This means a man shouldn't hurt her wife
because he'd hurt himself, too.

Islam seems committed to preserving this approach to social issues. But
lack of exactitude in Islamic culture might trigger false alarms when
persecuting women who are deemed as "whores", and Christians use every
such false alarm against Muslims in a way that hardly isn't
well-intended even if not quite respectful due to the Christian's
supposed spiritual inferiority and the ensuing difficulty of respecting
anything.



Anyway, looks like you didn't think through all of my message. I argued
that objects may be patterns. If so, it is possible to infer from the
rest of my message that as patterns, objects include processes. But as
objects, objects do not include processess.

You wrote that all objects are processes. This is true for all patterns
that include an object, because all patterns include a process, too. It
is true in the sense that object A, as a pattern, includes process P or
else it would not be a pattern but an object.

The naming convention you suggest might render the concept of "object"
redundant. Why throw away a concept?

It would be possible to define a concept of "object" so that an object
may include a process. But this would be bad practice because such an
object would obviously be of some other type than what I mean here and
what it would make sense to suppose Pirsig to mean in SODV. That would
confuse people.

Even though "object as object" and "object as pattern" are different so
that the latter includes a process, that shouldn't result in an actual
debate regarding what does the concept of "object" mean. In quantum
physics it is already known that light behaves as particles if expected
to do so, but as waves if expected to do so instead. Therefore, when a
person speaks of "objects" to another person, that person should "play
along" by trying to figure out whether the speaker means "objects as
objects" or "objects as patterns" instead of imposing a taxonomical rule
that appears to have no other function than that of preventing the
understanding of the speaker's message.



When I was a child I wrote stories on a 486 PC running Windows 3.11. I
remember that I sometimes felt sorry for the characters I erased by
pressing backspace. I felt like a character produced by a different
keystroke wouldn't be the same character as the one I erased. I made an
effort to stop feeling this way once I became convinced it doesn't turn
me into a better writer. I succeeded and it was not hard, but in
retrospect I do think my initial opinion was also somewhat valuable as a
guide in writing well. Now I might prefer to think that way again. To
erase or alter as little as possible. To develop, by way of training, an
ability to write as much as possible in one run and to make additions
systematically and quickly and without exerting a different amount of
effort than when writing the first version. Writing is a craft, not
science. The only reason it's not an industry is because the one
performing the task would have much difficulty objectifying it. But
sometimes a challenge like this is more worthwhile than the things women
might be expected to come up with. Sometimes not.



Regards,
Tuk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOK7wx8GDo

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Tim,
what?

--
--
---
CTMU Discussion
Subscribe:
ctmu-di...@googlegroups.com
Unsubscribe:
ctmu-discussi...@googlegroups.com
WWW:
http://groups.google.com/group/ctmu-discussion

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CTMU Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ctmu-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

So maybe I should just be alone then?

I think I can do that, probably.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

I don't know how to go on about polytheism or being a musician or even cigarettes. I'm not a very practical kind of person. I wouldn't be doing this kind of stuff in my life if I could read from a book what is wrong with it. I haven't yet been able to do that. Of course I'm not searching only from the definitely wrong places. I've ordered a book on how to learn Arabic but it's not here yet.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

And an arrogant person like me... I will feel inferior if I think I don't do it because I can't do it. I want to think that it's not a skill issue. I don't want to have too many skill issues in my life. That would feel like me being a lazy person. Life is just easier if I don't feel inferior. I hope you agree.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

All,
you know, I just have a habit of assuming Mr. Court Jester to have some kind of a point although... it's hard to respect him most of the time.

Regards,
Tuk

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

But I guess, Tim, I didn't mean it when I said your posting should be limited to twice a week. I just thought that's what Bo would have considered appropriate had he been of mathematical character.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

You know, I just keep thinking of Gene Ray when I develop these parallel dimensions of time.


function createDimensions() {
    var ret =
        [new Dimension("X",["epistemological", "classical"],"The X-axis measures the quality (rational or gnostic?) and quantity of classical quality, which is the object of epistemology. \"Epistemology\" refers to the study of knowledge.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Y",["ontological", "romantic"],"The Y-axis measures the quality (tangible or abstract?) and quantity of romantic quality, which is the object of ontology. \"Ontology\" refers to the study of existence.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Z",["folding"],"The Z-axis measures the quality (extroverted or introverted?) and quantity of folding, which is the object of socionics. \"Socionics\" is a branch of analytic or Jungian psychology.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("T(c)",["conceptual time"],"The T(c)-axis measures the quantity of conceptual time, which is a data structure for expressing analogies between temporal processes regardless of the proportions of the magnitude of their timespans. The relevant factor is divisibility, not magnitude of timespan.", 4, false, true),
        new Dimension("T(c)",["paraphysical time"],"The T(c)-axis measures the quantity of paraphysical time, which is needed for linking conceptual time to inorganic time in order to simulate that which is modeled by vector summation in the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality or AMOQ. In Four Mountains, T(c) is measured as turns.", 4, false, false),
        new Dimension("T(i)",["inorganic time"],"The T(i)-axis measures the quantity of physical time, which is measured in seconds (technically in milliseconds in JavaScript).", 1000, true, true)];
    return ret; }


I don't think most bad persons use six dimensions, although can't be sure. But we can have three more once we add the spatial X, Y and Z-dimensions!

Regards,
Tuk

P.S.

There, we have 12 dimensions, of which all are not metaphysical but all are relativized to metaphysics:

function createDimensions() {
    var ret =
        [new Dimension("X(m)",["epistemological", "classical", "metaphysical longitude"],"The X-axis measures the quality (rational or gnostic?) and quantity of classical quality, which is the object of epistemology. \"Epistemology\" refers to the study of knowledge.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Y(m)",["ontological", "romantic", "metaphysical latitude"],"The Y-axis measures the quality (tangible or abstract?) and quantity of romantic quality, which is the object of ontology. \"Ontology\" refers to the study of existence.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Z(m)",["folding", "metaphysical depth"],"The Z-axis measures the quality (extroverted or introverted?) and quantity of folding, which is the object of socionics. \"Socionics\" is a branch of analytic or Jungian psychology. But the XY-plane of AMOQ is rotated 45 degrees from the XY plane of the Socionics 3-space, and this is not currently accounted for in Four Mountains.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("T(c)",["conceptual time"],"The T(c)-axis measures the quantity of conceptual time, which is a data structure for expressing analogies between temporal processes regardless of the proportions of the magnitude of their timespans. The relevant factor is divisibility, not magnitude of timespan.", 4, false, true),
        new Dimension("T(c)",["paraphysical time"],"The T(c)-axis measures the quantity of paraphysical time, which is needed for linking conceptual time to inorganic time in order to simulate that which is modeled by vector summation in the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality or AMOQ. In Four Mountains, T(c) is measured as turns.", 4, false, false),
        new Dimension("T(ino)",["inorganic time"],"The T(ino)-axis measures the quantity of physical time, which is measured in seconds (technically in milliseconds in JavaScript).", 1000, true, true),
        new Dimension("X(ino)",["width"],"\"Width\" is the lateral extent of something.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("Y(ino)",["height"],"\"Height\" is distance between the base and the top of something.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("Z(ino)",["depth"],"\"Depth\" is the extent to which an object extends inwards.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("T(bio)",["biological time"],"The T(bio)-axis measures the quantity (and quality?) of conceptual time, possibly allowing removal of DEATH from the main grid as it is perhaps too ambitious and ambiguous to relativize such a concept like that.", 4, true, true), // this could be a metaphysical dimension
        new Dimension("T(soc)",["social time"],"The T(soc)-axis measures the quantity (and quality?) of social time, possibly allowing the AMOQ to be used for predicting political events according to empirical evidence.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("T(intl)",["intellectual time"],"The T(intl)-axis measures the quantity (and quality) of intellectual time, possibly allowing the AMOQ to predict its own lifespan.", 4, true, true), // these are probably metaphysical dimensions.
        ];
    return ret; }

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

You know, even if string theory were simple by virtue of having only 11 dimensions (at least in M-theory), I think AMOQ is more interesting although it now has 12 dimensions. But the calculations one does in AMOQ are much simpler than those I believe one does in M-theory, because I think M-theory requires the Peano axioms.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

function Dimension(sym,names,desc,res,metaphysical,conceptual) { // If you want to rotate a dimension, modify this function here... (Socionics)
    this.sym = sym;
    this.names = names;
    this.desc = desc;
    this.res = res;
    this.metaphysical = metaphysical; // Non-metaphysical dimensions will not be used for creating RelSlots. Conceptual time T is one such dimension.
    if(conceptual) { this.slots = createDimSlots(sym,res); } // We wouldn't annotate dimensions whose coordinates can be large numbers, such as the spatial dimensions or time as measured in milliseconds or similar units that are empirical instead of conceptual. Non-conceptual dimensions should have a lower case letter as symbol?
    else { this.slots = []; }}

function createDimensions() {
    var ret =
        [new Dimension("X(m)",["epistemological", "classical", "metaphysical longitude"],"The X-axis measures the quality (rational or gnostic?) and quantity of classical quality, which is the object of epistemology. \"Epistemology\" refers to the study of knowledge.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Y(m)",["ontological", "romantic", "metaphysical latitude"],"The Y-axis measures the quality (tangible or abstract?) and quantity of romantic quality, which is the object of ontology. \"Ontology\" refers to the study of existence.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("Z(m)",["folding", "metaphysical depth"],"The Z-axis measures the quality (extroverted or introverted?) and quantity of folding, which is the object of socionics. \"Socionics\" is a branch of analytic or Jungian psychology. But the XY-plane of AMOQ is rotated 45 degrees from the XY plane of the Socionics 3-space, and this is not currently accounted for in Four Mountains.", 4, true, true),

        new Dimension("T(c)",["conceptual time"],"The T(c)-axis measures the quantity of conceptual time, which is a data structure for expressing analogies between temporal processes regardless of the proportions of the magnitude of their timespans. The relevant factor is divisibility, not magnitude of timespan.", 4 /*supposed to be dynamic*/, false, true),
        new Dimension("T(p)",["paraphysical time"],"The T(p)-axis measures the quantity of paraphysical time, which is needed for linking conceptual time to inorganic time in order to simulate that which is modeled by vector summation in the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality or AMOQ. In Four Mountains, T(p) is measured as turns.", 4, false, false),

        new Dimension("T(ino)",["inorganic time"],"The T(ino)-axis measures the quantity of physical time, which is measured in seconds (technically in milliseconds in JavaScript).", 1000, true, true),
        new Dimension("X(ino)",["width"],"\"Width\" is the lateral extent of something.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("Y(ino)",["height"],"\"Height\" is distance between the base and the top of something.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("Z(ino)",["depth"],"\"Depth\" is the extent to which an object extends inwards.", -1/*unknown for now*/, false, false),
        new Dimension("T(bio)",["biological time"],"The T(bio)-axis measures the quantity (and quality?) of conceptual time, possibly allowing removal of DEATH from the main grid as it is perhaps too ambitious and ambiguous to relativize such a concept like that.", 4, true, true), // this could be a metaphysical dimension
        new Dimension("T(soc)",["social time"],"The T(soc)-axis measures the quantity (and quality?) of social time, possibly allowing the AMOQ to be used for predicting political events according to empirical evidence.", 4, true, true),
        new Dimension("T(intl)",["intellectual time"],"The T(intl)-axis measures the quantity (and quality) of intellectual time, possibly allowing the AMOQ to predict its own lifespan.", 4, true, true), // these are probably metaphysical dimensions.
        ];
    return ret; }

Note that the "res"olution of T(c) is supposed to be dynamic, that is, heuristically detected (i suppose) or by finding mathematical patterns. These might or might not mean the same thing.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Langan wrote about Lagrangian something, but... Lagrangian mechanics seem to involve Peano axioms.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

I have found this Howison book. Which part would you like me to read?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

I do think Langan did contribute, but I don't know how to contribute to what he created. And he's no longer doing research on that, it seems.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Metadimensions.

I don't think dimensions should only be objects. If dimensions can be holy, it should be possibly for a dimension to be a process.

Therefore, it might be possible to analogize between objects/processes versus patterns, and dimensions versus metadimensions.

This might be the only way to introduce theology. But that would probably only work in binary arithmetic. Any more expressive arithmetic would risk idolatry.

This basically means theology does not include utilitarian morality *at* *all*, which could be an important result.

That religion is ethical, not utilitarian - could be an important result although it's hypothesis, not a theorem.

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

Attached is the letter I finally sent Bob, signed dated and mailed Oct 20, 2015
(I started MD Nov 1, 2010; and quit in Jan 2011.  Though, Horse gave me one more later, before booting me without explanation.)

"evolution" serves something like the "Brick"

...

 God is a searcher of hearts and minds.  "Get Right"=x=.  And =x="Do You"!!!

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Experience cannot be the efficient cause of the capacity to experience.

< I agree.

Howison Proves, - and Proof is a Very special type of “intellectual pattern”, - that phenomena demand a Noumenon (“without other evidence than that of pure reason”). Notably, Howison’s “knife” here does not “cut”, but “weld”:

At p.17: “He [Immanuel Kant] suggested that experience may be not at all simple (i.e. not “always simple, always new”), but always complex, so that the very possibility of the experience which seems to the empiricist the absolute foundation of knowledge may depend on the presence in it of a factor that will have to be acknowledged as a priori.”

< I agree.


< Look like Kant should be considered agreeable with the MOQ, suggesting a possible compatibility with Islam.

These are our three organic and organising conceptions called the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. They are the fountains, severally, of our metaphysical and scientific, our aesthetic, and our moral consciousness.

< Sounds like a possible way to aestheticise Christianity without introducting theological conflict.

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:10:21 PM UTC-7, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:

Experience cannot be the efficient cause of the capacity to experience.

< I agree.

GOD BLESS YOU
 

Howison Proves, - and Proof is a Very special type of “intellectual pattern”, - that phenomena demand a Noumenon (“without other evidence than that of pure reason”). Notably, Howison’s “knife” here does not “cut”, but “weld”:

At p.17: “He [Immanuel Kant] suggested that experience may be not at all simple (i.e. not “always simple, always new”), but always complex, so that the very possibility of the experience which seems to the empiricist the absolute foundation of knowledge may depend on the presence in it of a factor that will have to be acknowledged as a priori.”

< I agree.

God Bless You.
 

< Look like Kant should be considered agreeable with the MOQ,

I confess "Look[s] like", because, since reading Howison, I haven't felt compelled to read Kant myself; and I confess "should be considered agreeable with", b...

 

suggesting a possible compatibility with Islam.

Let Us Pray.
 

These are our three organic and organising conceptions called the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. They are the fountains, severally, of our metaphysical and scientific, our aesthetic, and our moral consciousness.

< Sounds like a possible way to aestheticise Christianity without introducting theological conflict.

Luke 6:40.  "but when fully trained every disciple will be like his teacher."  https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylc=X3oDMTFiN25laTRvBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEaXRjAzEEc2VjA3NyY2hfcWEEc2xrA3NyY2h3ZWI-?p=bible+if+we+have+died+with+him&fr=yfp-t-653

"Natalie Merchant - Break Your Heart - YouTube":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM3fg8suMV4

tim
 

 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDUyMzIyMDc4MTQ1MDAyOTI1NTABMTE4MzE1MjMxODU4MjI2MDEyNTkBVU42VmJrV1ZGQUFKATAuMQEBdjI

...

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/moq-discuss/G0AKrtz_X8A/3Ezk5GcHCAAJ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLCa3vgrDew
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lilasquad/lb9PaAfdewg/crFw9gzcBgAJ
http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/home/comments/a_lack_of_symmetry_between_insisting_on_repentance_and_pleading_for_forgive /comment_

...

 In WichM person's wholeness_primar3

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

http://web.archive.org/web/20151107001220/https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=70142120000272870171^35 Wadleigh Ln, South Berwick, ME 03908 | Redfin

...

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

Wendy,

to be sure, the attached (big favor called upon) should be within ( http://web.archive.org/web/20151109164426/https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=70142120000272870171 )

...

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Wendy lives in Littleton? Have I spoken with her?

--

[`\w-instream&t=1m33s&v=tGrutgCwLHQ^DisciplinedIdea]

URP9Z7SyEmI

...

[Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and dr]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lilasquad/a-ZAwzfpk5o
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and dr

[Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and dr]

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2011-January/057861.html

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/moq-discuss/cIw8bPtL_lQ/tthKtaYNDwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lilasquad/pzbz7JApUzs/KF-AHWZSAQAJ

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2016-August/074115.html