From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 07:42:54 MDT
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:28 AM
Paul Grant writes:
[Brett]
> >It seems a great pity that amongst the first things intelligent
> >people often seem to get good at is sarcasm
>
> It is a useful ability whether u admit it or not.
You: I definately *do* admit that it is a useful ability. I think
I am a perhaps a bit like Harvey in that I have an emotional
predispisiton towards people playing nice.
I see it as efficient as well as pleasant. But given that people don't
always play nice I am certainly willing to fall back on
the alternatives.
Me: Agreed :) Thats generally how I play it ;P
You: I'm a rationalist humanist. I like to cooperate. But I am
also a reasonable bush lawyer and former state karate
champion I don't need to learn that sometimes the
opportunity to play nice is taken off the table by others. Then, if
truth be told I probably find the honesty and
directness of a real knock down take no prisoners fight preferable to
the namby pamby half hearted exchanges
of petty spites. I don't *like* the *ambiguity* of the middle ground of
minor petttiness. I like it to be *clear* whether
cooperation or competition is the optimal mode as then *I* can commit
more fully to either and not waste my
time.
Me: Hahahahaha :) I doubt things are resolved to ur satisfaction on a
regular basis,
insofar as people who would feel the need to reach for the "ambiguity of
the middle ground"
are rarely capable (emotionally) to offer such a clear statement of
intent.
Or perhaps I'm coloring I'm simply painting it through the lense of my
experiences.
<shrugs>
But in essence (at least theoretically), I agree. RL tends to be less
direct.
> >... and the great fear that stops a lesser mind from
> becoming a greater mind is the fear of looking stupid.
>
> Oh I'd agree with that statement insofar as it is a
> limiting factor for attempting new directions;
You: Hell, more than that its a limiting factor in learning.
Most of us live lives surrounded by sources of good
information and people who will as happily help us
and return one good turn for another as not. Once
one builds up some credibility and a stock of skills
contacts and a knowledge base to trade even the
trade gets to be informal and people with win/win
attitudes to mutual empowerment tend to seek
each other out.
Me: Thats also limited though by ur access to such people,
and what they have to offer in trade (versus what
you are offering and their needs). For instance,
I have run {acting as one of those people who
is very skilled in several areas within my
extended family} into several roadblocks; the largest
being the difference in experience levels between
my own level, and that of several cousins and other
associated ilk, despite being of similar chronological
age. The reality of the situation is that without a
bloodline (regardless of time in shared common experiences),
I would probably not have bothered, since they have nothing
notable of trade. Even the most sophisticated of them
required (practically speaking), approx 3 years to even
begin to develop an outlook that will eventually lead to
a good set of offerrings.
> >The fear of *looking* stupid might very well
> > cost people their lives in coming decades.
> > Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> > We all start ignorant.
>
> I'd like to think we all remain ignorant [given the
> sheer volume of information and possibilities]; some
> of us just manage to migrate to (slightly) lesser degrees
> of ignorance.
You: I see in this what I consider to be a socrates fallacy, ie,
the notion that as nothing can really be known the
person who thinks they know nothing is actually wisest.
Me: Oh I wouldn't go so far; I am merely pointing
out to pin down any particular statement as a fact,
you generally have to limit the domain in which u are
discussing; and that given true mastery of this
environment {which is at least, my goal} cannot be
had given the limitation just expressed, ergo we will
never be able to completely remove from ourselves
a state of ignorance {given the expansion of the domain}
:)
Or as David Bowie said in one of his songs,
that @ a certain point in development {of say, a technology},
I don't prefer knowledge, just certainty :)
You:
<snip>
We are social to an extent, (it is not sensible or useful
or healthy for us to personally doubt this), we are
reasonable to an extent ( again let socrates or the
neo-socratics take a shot at that as a fallacy). Once
we know we are social and we are ration we know
some things that are useful to us, to our happiness
and our development. We learn that we have freedoms
but that we remain free within bounds. We cannot
violate the contingent nature of the universe.
Me:
Yes, but that leaves in a continual state of ignorance,
does it not? There *is* no final point of enlightment
where we mystically shed our ignorance and reach
an enlightended state :) Ergo my previous statement
of simply being able to reach lesser degrees of ignorance.
You:
My point, ignorance is a natural starting postion and
it is not something to be *ashamed* of, but nor is it
in itself a positive virtue. Socrates was wrong. The
wisest man is not the man who knows he knows
nothing. Imo :-) A wiser man knows that he is
rational and social and that he will find health and satisfaction and
good relations at least potentially with other men
(or women) if he proceeds on the basis of these truths
that present themselves to him on a level even
more fundamental than scientific truths.
Me: I wouldn't go so far as to agree with you
regarding ur point on Socrates; I think we
simply differ in our intrepratations :) You
seem to imply that Socrates was saying ignorance
is a blessed state; whereas I think that Socrates
was stating a simple truth; that no matter how much
knowledge you accumulate, there is still so much
more to learn, and past that, too many probabilities
to deal with. He wasn't explicitly giving a
comparison function; merely observing that anyone
with half a brain will also have hit a similar
conclusion.... which of course, implies a test of sorts....
Of course, the game can get deeper from there :)
and BTW - just because you achieve a lesser state
of ignorance does not mean u neccesarily are more
competent that someone else in the grand scheme of
things; I, for instance, though quite skilled in several
areas, would not care to go head to head with a peasant
in the area concerning growing things. In other words,
knowledge is not an instant path to success :) The fitness
of ur function depends heavily on the environment in which
you are competing.
omard-out
things
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 07:51:10 MDT