By the way, since it's such a nice morning, and because this is such a nice cafe, and I feel like rapping, I'll actually address one of the asides from your rap:
> but it is a relief that you are not constantly saying > what a great life you are leading and how many famous > people have crossed your path This is not the first time you've gotten a minor bug up your butt about this. What would you have me do? NOT write about my life? That's just what I do. I have picked up this trait from my favorite singer/songwriter Bruce Cockburn, and just write about my life. He likens it to "scattering breadbrumbs" from his life behind him as he walks. He's NOT suggesting that anyone *follow* those breadcrumbs; he's just throw- ing them out to see if anyone identifies with them and can have some fun with them. Me, I travel, and I occasionally meet people. Unlike some here, whose lives to be taking place only inside their heads, mine has an external, objective side to it. I may be writing about subjective stuff that occurs to me in a sidewalk cafe, but I'm actually *sitting* in a physical, objective cafe, occasionally talking with physical, objective people. In the final analysis these objective parts of my life are probably far more important than any silly ideas I could come up with, because they *are* objective...they have reality. The thoughts and the ideas do not. But I understand if you're sensitive about such things, so I won't tell you who is also sitting in this cafe as I write this, or what she's wearing. :-) :-) :-) --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Good rap. I shall avoid the temptation to reply in terms > one particular argument-beast, and instead try to expand > upon the story I told earlier about the interactions of > Albert Einstein and my grandfather, Winthrop Wright. It > seems to me that those were good *conversations*, and > that almost no one in the universe could ever accuse > them of being arguments. It's the WHY of this I'd like > to examine. > > From my point of view, for a conversation to devolve into > an argument, at least one of the parties involved has to > have a fairly sizable ego, or self. That ego has to be > convinced that the way it sees things is, at the very > least, "right" or "correct" or "truth." > > Now, again from my point of view, there is nothing wrong > with believing anything as silly as this (both that they > are an ego-principle with existence in and of themselves, > and that this ego-principle actually "knows" stuff, and > can consider it "right" or "truth"), as long as they don't > feel the need to get all in your face about it. In other > words, religious fanatics and such ilk are fine *unless > and until* they start trying to *make* other people > believe the same sillinesses they believe in. > > This was not the case in the Wright-Einstein conversations. > Based on many stories of both of them, they were above all > humble men who didn't believe for an instant that they > "knew" anything even remotely approaching "truth." They > were also scientists, who understood that "truth" is always > a moving target, and *at best* is an attempted description > of phenomena one can only see a miniscule portion of. So > they could really have *conversations* in equations drawn > on a blackboard, seeking to come as close to a good descrip- > tion of the mysteries they pondered as possible. There was > never any crowing ("Aha! See...I've proved you WRONG and > my self RIGHT!" and never any denunciations or game-playing > ("Aha! You're trying to LIE about what I believe about this > particular way that atoms line up...thus YOU are 'bad' and > I am 'good'"). Their conversations were genial, and fun for > both parties; that's why they kept having them, for years. > > Even on the Internet, and even in cesspools like FFL, you > can find such conversations from time to time. Interactions > between two or more people who have the humility to under- > stand that their egos don't know shit about nothing, but > who are willing to rap about it anyway, just for fun, and > to see if there is anything interesting that can be determ- > ined from such rapping. > > Then you've got Fairfield Life, which has been shaped over > a number of years by a few people (and one in particular) > whose egos are so completely fuckin' out of control that > they have to turn pretty much *everything* into an argument. > The desire to argue RUNS their lives; they clearly aren't > having any fun if they're not in one. And so their egos > and those egos' constant need to dominate and assert its > silly "truths" on others fuck up the whole conversation > thang for other people. I think it's sad, and saddest for > the compulsive arguers themselves. What, after all, is > the epitaph they are writing for themselves by living their > lives this way? Are they going to be *happy* with the words > "She/he won every argument she/he started on the Internet" > on their tombstones? What a pathetic waste of life. > > The larger question would seem to me to be how does one > *avoid* such compulsive arguers when one realizes one has > encountered them? Is there anything one can do to escape > the Argumentation Tar Babies of the world, and avoid getting > sucked into the event horizon of their black (very black) > holes? > > I've experimented over the years with Douglas Adams' theory > of how to deal with nasty critters. One of the reasons every > traveler in "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" was told > to have a towel on them at all times was as a defense against > the Ravenous Bugbladder Beast Of Traal. It had a terrible > disposition, and if you encountered it, it would (as a result > of its own nature and its own compulsive needs) attempt to > rip you to pieces and eat you, just (presumably) to show > other RBBT's in the area that it could. > > So according to Adams, what one should do if one encounters > a RBBT is to whip out one's towel and put it over one's own > head. The reason is that the RBBT believes that if you can't > see it, it can't see you. So the frood standing there in > front of it wearing a towel over his or her head becomes > effectively invisible. > > My experience has shown me that this tactic works for *some* > compulsive arguers on the Internet. If you just ignore them, > and refuse to get sucked into their arguments, sooner or > later they move on to other suckers, and try to lure them > into the arguments they need so badly. I would guesstimate > that this defense works on about 90% of Internet RBBTs. > > Unfortunately, there's that other 10%. They take the Adams > Defense as the ultimate insult, go into vendetta mode, and > persist in stalking the potential victim, often for decades. > > So far -- based on my own experience and that of others who > share my view of compulsive arguers on the Internet and what > to do about them -- the only solution for dealing with this > malignant 10% is just to continue ignoring them and wait > for them to die. This defense, although it has its drawbacks, > is considered better than actually interacting with the > compulsive arguers, because although they may bark and howl > and try everything they can to lure you into one of their > arguments, if you Just Don't Go There the worst that can > happen is that you'll get splashed by a little Ravenous > Bugbladder Beast Of Traal drool. > > > > Anartaxius opines, and asks for other opinions: > > > > It is kind of a habit from reading scientific papers. Because scientists > > are uncertain, they always use language that waffles, using words like > > 'may', or 'perhaps', or 'if'. You may notice I do that rather frequently. > > When I listen to politicians, I generally assume something is going to be > > lying, for example Obama's recent 'red line' backtracking. When it comes to > > politicians in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans alike are pretty much > > equal opportunity liars. Maureen Murphy, an American politician said the > > reason there were so few femaile politicians was it was too much trouble to > > put makeup on two faces. > > > > Frankly, just as you seem to find my comments disingenuous, I find the way > > you generally respond to people also disingenuous, mostly combative. > > Presumably you are interested in spirituality. Who or what is being > > 'insulted'? It is just that inbred pest called the ego. The ego always has > > an axe to grind and swing. The ego thinks it is a 'person', that it has > > rights, this is our biggest problem in spirituality. It is more of a > > process than a thing, it is not an entity. If a person's identity is pure > > consciousness, there is no one to be insulted. I am not saying I cannot > > take offense or be annoyed etc., but those who repeated take offense at > > what the world throws at them are spiritual cretins, and I hope you are not > > one of those, but to me you do not speak like a person who is interested in > > the spiritual nature of life, and yet, you are apparently reading about it > > a lot, and in various kinds of discussions, but I simply do not see much > > spiritual depth in what you say (but it is a relief that you are not > > constantly saying what a great life you are leading and how many famous > > people have crossed your path). > > > > Your method of argumentation does not build, it takes down, much in the > > same way Barry's comments in reference to you are a take down. You two are > > a strange marriage made in heaven. I say heaven because if heaven makes > > people such snipers, it is certainly not such a great place to be. > > > > From my perspective, you basically engage in the same tactics as those you > > oppose. You shift context under the pretense of maintaining context; you > > snip relevant parts of arguments declaring them to be irrelevant. That is > > how it appears to me. Maybe you do not experience that you are doing these > > things at all. When I shift context, it is more inadvertent, because I > > really do not care that much about narrowly defined context. You might try > > spreading you wings and go off on tangents once in a while to see what > > comes up. I find it interesting to watch moths in flight - they never go in > > a straight line, in a world of predators, they deviate from directness. So > > it is on this thing we call the Internet, where trolls lie in wait. > > > > I am here being critical of you, whatever that 'you' is for you. If you > > would only apply your skills in a more uplifting way, and not be so > > critical of people's ineptness, minor mistakes, their opacity, and have if > > you had a more relaxed agenda, you would be a brilliant poster here, but > > for now, I think you use your skills in a rather dark way, so that > > brilliance has a tarnish to it. Your argument style has a strong polemical > > element, which is better suited to the political arena, where lairs lie, > > than in forums discussing knowledge. It is only when you are kissing up to > > someone like Robin that you go a bit squishy. A certain softness is > > required when dealing with people except in extreme circumstances. > > > > Perhaps both are perspectives are distorted. What do others think of this > > exchange? We are not always the best judge of our own behaviour. >
