> Wax writes:
> > The point is you shouldn't be happy to absorb wisdom from some black
> > people and some women. You should absorb wisdom based on its merit.
>
> First let me say that I misunderstood your original post, and I
> mostly agree with you, though I'm not sure that you're expressing
> your ideas in the most effective possible way (and there's nothing
> wrong with that, because these are inherently difficult things to
> talk about).
It made perfect sense when I wrote it. I don't think I can really explain
the meaning of the quoted sentence without inventing a new language. What we
need is a new language capable of transmitting the model of an idea. Your
computer can translate it in a way you and only you would understand, with
hyperlinks to the various thoughts and memories leading up to the original
idea. English is so faulted.
Alternatively, I could take a creative writing course!
> But since you seem to have developed some method of judging the merit
> of someone's wisdom *prior* to absorbing that wisdom, I'd be *very*
> interested to learn of your methods, since I'm sure I could benefit
> tremendously from the application of these new techniques.
Actually I discriminate according to race, gender, creed, colour, and body
language. Which kind of makes my above statement loose the little merit it
had! But I didn't mean individuals discriminating as a basis of choosing who
to give credence to, which I'm all for. It's the idea of non-critical
discrimination, discrimination without merit that I oppose.
Maybe critical-discrimination should be a part of the extropian principles!?
> > It's time we simply stopped programming.
>
> I think we're designed to program. We can hardly help it. But we can
> start doing it deliberately instead of just automatically passing along
> whichever programs happen to have gotten their hooks into our brains
> before we woke up. In Leary's terminology, we can start
> programming and metaprogramming ourselves.
>
> And besides, programming is fun! Especially when it's collaborative
> and interactive. In that form, it's often called "conversation". I
> dig it. It seems to be a positive-sum game.
Again, crossed wires. When I hear the word 'program' I hear 'dogma'. I
don't think conversation is programming because it's subjective and
multidirectional. Programming sounds like hard coding.
These posts have made me realise something. This is no longer about skin
colour, gender or sexuality - it's about words. It's about what meaning we
each take out of words, and our failure to communicate what we really want to
say. I'm optimistic (dynamically, of course) that we'll find way to share
our thoughts. And then, even if we don't get along, at least we'll
understand why.
--Wax