Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:51:52 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200208280151.g7S1pv197241@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. >> >> > A strange sentiment, >> >> Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. >> >> To which standard do you refer? >> > The Zen. >> If this were truly your standard, you wouldn't be referring to >> "strange" and "normal" as opposites that mattered. > You're the one who dragged "normal" into the discussion; all > I said was that the sentiment was strange. "Strange" implies it's opposite "Normal", which brings it into the discussion by reference. You can not usefully discuss "strange" without reference to the concept of "normal". > What with him being dead, and all... 8-) 8-). Exactly. ;) >> >> I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had >> >> to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I >> >> did. =) >> >> >> >> Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed >> >> to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? >> > >> > On the contrary, >> >> How is this contrary to what I said? Contrary would be something like: >> "You don't understand why attribution to a source is imporant" or "Of >> course the source is important" or something similar. Not: > > It's contrary to your implied premise that I was assuming in > the first place. I assumed you were assuming because you were holding attribution up as if it mattered. If you weren't assuming, then why does attribution of a quote that contains knowledge matter? >> > your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own >> > signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your >> > actual level of familiarity with your subject. >> >> ...a comment which highlights your academic familiarity but betrays >> your lack of real understanding of the subject. =) >> >> Academically speaking, I will surrender the crown of "who's right" to >> you. >> >> Any other understnding needs no surrender of anything but one's own >> assumptions. > > Zen, as a philosophy, decries ego. Claiming someone else's > work, even if done by omission, is an exhibition of ego. I exhibit ego with each keystroke, as do you. Unless one of us is an enlightened spiritual master (a title born of ego), we cannot help but exhibit ego in today's skewed culture. Neither of us are enlightened spiritual masters because we are both participating in this diatribe. Thus both of us are exhibiting ego at this very moment. Given that "claiming someone else's work is true" is an exhibition of ego, just why do you point to -that- one exhibition and not others like your first message in this round? Whim? Sport? Is your ego trying to best my ego? (Tautological question, of course, but it had to be asked.) Further, I disagree with your implication that the omission of an attribution directly implies that this is claiming someone elses work as your own. My signatures are there for a specific purpose which does -not- include knowing who said which quote. BTW, Zen (as with most spiritual roads) doesn't decry ego per se, it merely considers it irrelavent to reality. If you are too busy decrying ego (an egotistical pastime in itself), you aren't at all seeing the reality before you. =) >> > to the issue >> > of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the >> > possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls >> > are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are >> > instead some third thing. >> >> Trolls would not exist without the ability to troll. Trolling, by >> definition, is attempting to anti-contribute by distraction. They >> cannot be some third thing by definition. Thus, excluded middle >> paradoxia has no basis for applicability in this argument. > > Actually, there is a third option. Perhaps they are just assholes. > And a fourth: perhaps they are deranged. I consider these two options too similar to over-categorize them as separate options. Note that this categorization doesn't prevent them from playing their part in the yin-yang dance, it merely gives them another category to be named by. > We need not glorify them by assuming that they are as rational as > ourselves, and thus are acting in the service of some goal. No one has been glorifying, and my statements weren't intended to do such. If one can see that the trolls are simply there due to natural phenomena, one has an easier time of marking them as irrelavent, swapping them out, and giving other more important CPU bound tasks some quality time. > As for definitions, yours is wrong; the correct definition can be > found at: > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html Just who decided this is the "correct" definition? I would accept "consensual", but not "correct". I define a troll differently (and more generally), so perhaps this is the source of our differences. ;) >> Finally, you can remove the source but the ideas spoken by the >> source will persist in your head unless you can master the easier >> technique to get rid of them...ignore them. Since you have to master >> this anyway, why kill another? > Some parts of human psychology are hard-wired. You point about > the ideas is valid, but so is the fact that most people can > remove from their consciousness an idea by destroying the source; > if you destroy what you fear or do not understand, it is no longer > something begging to be understood, nor something to fear. By > destroying the source, you destroy the idea, in effigy. This is something only time and evolution will solve. *shrug* >> > Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history >> > of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may >> > terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. >> >> It's interesting that murder is seen as a viable and good alternative >> to simply ignoring the speech. Murder is in most cases much more >> energy spent than simply tuning a cretin out using the brain you've >> been given. This is exactly why I consider this planet an insane >> asylum. ;) > > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common > good. Just why is this Theory more correct than others? > Thus trolls serve the most oppresive minority of society by > triggering measures which can be justified to the majority, > but once in place, abused to oppress *any* dissent. You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher evolutionary level than it's counterparts. Personally, if I can help it, I refrain from participating in communities with such measures in place. I find that real information is more accurately conveyed in the open arena, with all ranges of people (from the "STFU" d00d to the multisyllabic pleonastic pontificator) being allowed equal access to the mindshare. Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? >> Perhaps you said it, but do you really buy it? > There *is* a difference between suffering a fool, and > suffering him _gladly_. 8-). LOL. >> >> > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum >> >> > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for >> >> > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. >> >> >> >> Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? >> > >> > "Majority makes right". >> >> We weren't talking about right and wrong were we? I merely asserted >> that what is true for trolls is also true for the community. > > No. You can not tar a positive-sum community with a brush > which applies only to zero-sum ideologues. Heh, I don't think we are arguing sums and results here. I assert the following. You take any large random group of people, some subset of them have common interests. This group forms a community. The anti-group is also formed (by implication if you must). That's how it works. Members of the anti-group are not-in-contact, and trickle into the group as trolls and kooks. >> > It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike >> > this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms >> > you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each >> > society trying to grab as much territory as possible. >> >> Evolutionary pressure is necessary to overcome genetic defects such as >> "worldview", "righteousness", and "opinion". If I buy out of the game, >> I also lose the benefit of the lesson. > > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the > short term. In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. Come on. You haven't even defined a number space and what direction is positive here. Personally, even for my overworkable brain, I think there are too many variables and too many dimensions involved for any meaningful talk about "higher sum" or "better". Some people do well talking about this, but I always find them ignoring some non-zero segment of the population to do this effectively. The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. This is highly general I'll admit. As applicable to FreeBSD, it's a bit easier to define your domain of comparison so that you can see what is "better" or "worse"...if you are well studied computer experts like most of us. Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. > In reality, the idea that you can always go from any equilibrium > point to another, traversing the distance in evolutionary steps, > is just so much bullshit. At the scales of time we currently can perceive, I agree that we can't see any real benefit in this model. ;) Often when I have had arguments in this direction, it would seem that there are those who cannot accept the datum that our intelligence and brainpower do have upper bounds, and that there are things we cannot know even if we try. If you are one of those people, I can assure you we will agree to disagree on this line of thinking. > Inevitably, the We Fear Change(tm) faction will lose. > If someone feels that strongly about the direction of an Open > Source project, then barring some legal issue that precludes it, > they should fork the project, and go off in their chosen direction. > If people are willing to follow, then they will follow, and if not, > then they will have to accept the fact that they are a minority, > and live with it. It's the people who are so attached to ego that > they can't live with that result, that become the trolls. This is still "anti-community" behavior, dont'cha know. It's the opposite of "support", the antithesis of "contribute". In any large collection of humans called a "community" you are going to have these. Never mind why (though it is interesting to discuss). Still, this phenomena is observable in any human endeavor and I claim it is part of the balancing of nature in the yin-yang dance of life. It happens. We should get over it. =) > Those trolls attack all *but* the project they favor, since they > have nothing else of value to offer their favored projects but > their presumed ability to interfere with the otherwise normal > function of the competing projects. Generally, though, these > trolls are impotent, and can't effectively achieve their goal. Some people are good at creation. Others are good at destruction. It is this latter category which fosters the troll you describe above. I would argue that this troll is a member of the opposing community who cannot contribute except by destruction. Since they do not want to destroy their own community, they attack others. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Learn to behave from those who cannot. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208280151.g7S1pv197241>