At 11:41 AM 10/23/2007, you wrote: >I remembered seeing this word from many years ago but, although I couldn't >recall the exact nuance, the definition given by gav didn't match my fuzzy >memory. Being 'pronoid' is not really a good thing. As usual wikipedia comes >to the rescue: > >"Pronoia is the positive counterpart of paranoia. It is the delusion that >others think well of one. Actions and the products of one's efforts are >thought to be well received and praised by others. Mere acquaintances are >thought to be close friends; politeness and the exchange of >pleasantries<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pleasantries&action=edit>are >taken as expressions of deep attachment and the promise of future >support. Pronoia appears rooted in the social complexity and cultural >ambiguity of our lives: we have become increasingly dependent on the >opinions of others based on uncertain criteria." > >I think pronoids would be accident prone and would tend to have a false >sense of security. > >Are YOU one? > >-Peter
What security, Peter, are you talking about? Is there really such a thing? - Marsha >On 23/10/2007, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Akshay, Gav, > > > > I think I agree with Gav. Akshey when you say > > ""The universe is a conspiracy on my behalf", the very sentence is > > contradictory because conspiracy, like clapping, cannot happen without > > two participating entities. .... Swearing together to harm, is that > > the Purpose?" > > > > Depends what you think a "conspiracy" is. > > > > Natural evolution causes "harm" to some entities, making an omelette > > breaks eggs, so causing "harm" is not the issue. The issue, even for a > > well intentioned conspiracy (as opposed to one whose aims are malign) > > is essentially secrecy - how aware passive participants and the > > uninvolved are in the process and its motives. > > > > My theory, and the reason I tend to reject conspiracy theories > > (conspiracies by "them", the "system", etc) and see them as natural > > processes as follows. > > > > Yes, one reason is that human bystanders (even the passively involved) > > will always have different perspectives of means and ends ... how big > > a picture to take into account, how big an end is "justified" by how > > many "means" - a balance of values. > > > > But more importantly, the means and processes are often not so much > > secret, as un-recognised - discounted by too simple SOMist logic - so > > that people are more blind-sided than deliberately kept in the dark by > > anyone. Worse still we accept the blind-siding as the normal process > > of argument and justification - the SOMist meme - the rationalistic > > neurosis, natural hypocrisy. > > > > This latter case is by far the most important in the "whole world as a > > conspiracy involving me" angle that Gav is alluding to. There is no > > "them" here to deliberately keep secrets - but the accepted memes can > > leave us in the dark nevertheless. > > > > All this talk of deliberate ends is a question of teleology - purpose. > > For me teleology is in evolution - it's a natural direction (as > > opposed to end). At the biological level it is in the genes (not in > > the living beings). At the intellectual level it's in the memes (not > > in the hosts brains). These are the much misunderstood selfish genes > > and memes. > > > > Evolution is a natural conspiracy of natural processes. Whether it is > > on our behalf or not we benefit as the (so far) most advanced meme > > machine in our corner of the cosmos - the benefit is to the > > advancement of genes (and now memes). It's as well to remember that we > > are most importantly a collection of memes - the collection of genes > > and flesh and bone (and bacteria) are baggage along for the ride. The > > memes can keep a large part of our conscious intellect in the dark > > (Let them eat SOM, SOMist intellect for the masses). > > > > Fortunately some (Gav among them) are more enlightened, and recognise > > a good meme when they see it. We must not be uninvolved, passive > > bystanders. > > > > Thanks for that opportunity. > > Ian > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
