crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> On 09/18/2016 11:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>>> There also are duties, yes. I agree that rights are not enough. One can
>>> argue though that duties follow from the rights.
>>  taking just the bill of ethics section on "certainty", if you define
>> things in terms of "certain duties" you've already failed.  if you are
>> *certain* that duties will help fulfil a goal, you've moved into
>> static bureaucracy without even realising it... and are thus moving
>> automatically and subconsciously into being *unable* to react to
>> changing circumstances, and thus, by definition, *will* be unable to
>> fulfil the goal.
>>  entropy has to be fought, basically.  now, that's not to be confused
>> with "duty" in the indian / ayurvedic context, which is best phrased
>> as "doing your duty" i.e. "act with integrity".  that's *completely*
>> different.
>>  ... but if you're referring to "dividing a goal up into fixed duties"
>> that to me is an *automatic* way to fail.
> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.

 don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!

 no, it's a totally different meaning of the word "duty" in the vedic
context (which has nothing to do with religion).  "duty" in the vedic
context is more akin to "fulfilment of responsibility as associated
with roles".  it's *absolutely nothing* to do with "rights"

> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic

 stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
"rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".

> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
> similar consequences.

 i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".

 the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
anybody i like that gets in my way".

 the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or
not ethical... in terms that are black and white.

 that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".

> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.

 ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.

 *by definition*.

> Some people
> apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.

 it's by definition.  an-archy *means* - by definition "without having
any arch".

>For example, Wikipedia
> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.

 if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
*by definition* no longer an an-archy.

> It
> may be more clear to call it organization.
>>  words like "policy" and "rights" and "duties" and "democracy" and
>> "hierarchy" - these are all "sleepwalking" words that have countless
>> examples showing us how badly and how drastically they're failing us.
>> i do have to hand over control of the EOMA initiative to a responsible
>> group at some point in the next ten years, but it will *not* be to a
>> group that basically sleepwalks the EOMA initiative into oblivion.
> Yes, they often go wrong. Disregarding them often goes wrong too. It
> depends on the implementation. I don’t want to throw the baby out with
> the bathwater and say that rights *cannot* work as well as ideals.

> More
> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.

 it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.

> I don’t think our opinions are far apart.

 florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the
different understandings that you have of certain words which are
critical to the conversation.  with clarity of the understanding of
words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions,
even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we

 but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as
many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard /
measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than
"total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination
and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer
than i have time for, for which i apologise.

> I am quite happy with
> WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of
> profit maximization or else I would not be here.

 can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world
without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read,
the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's
almost overwhelming.

>> do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which
>> allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm)
>> would be a good idea?  because i certainly don't!
>> this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start,
>> but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i
>> am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible
>> nightmare scenario.
>> l.
> I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one
> year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what
> the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also
> told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…

 thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most
people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and
copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric

 utter insanity.  they're *literally* deluded.

 cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle.  got a design
concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as
"localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke
engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).

 long story.  not relevant to this list.


arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to