Re: virus: _____ of Virus
Tom Parsons (parsonst@icarus.ihug.co.nz)
Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:15:26 +1300
At 05:06 PM 11/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 04:35 PM 11/24/97 +0000, Ken Kittlitz wrote:
>>At 03:30 PM 11/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>>If you have that much latitude, why do you choose to interpret my
>>>remarks such that you disagree with them?
>>
>>What criteria should I have used to interpret them?
>
>I've found it useful and rewarding to interpret messages such that
>I would agree with them. Sometimes it takes more effort, and sometimes
>it leads to misinterpretation, but generally it is a good strategy.
>
>>Really, it wasn't a conscious choice as much as a reaction to how they
>>first struck me. I suppose I could have mulled them over, trying to figure
>>out what you really meant, or simply asked for clarification. But neither
>>action would have been necessary had you fleshed out your point more in the
>>first place.
>
>What criteria do *you* use to decide when enough is enough :)
>
>>>My point is that it is not necessarily stupid to advocate something that
>>>goes against some part of "human nature" (whatever that is).
>>
>>Ah, now this I both understand and agree with. But I also agree with what
>>(I think) Tim P. was saying: that some parts of human nature are difficult
>>enough to fight against that your agenda might be better served by
>>leveraging off of or subverting them in some way than in opposing them
>>directly.
>
>Agreed, but not in this case. Consider:
>"Stop the violence or I'll kill you!"
>"Trust me when I say trust no-one."
>"God told me to tell you to question authority."
>
>It is of little use (other than maybe for humor and zen koans) to send a
>message that undermines itself.
>
>--
>David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
>Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
>Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
Ken understands my intent.
Do the articles of faith and commitment I posted undermine themselves?
Only in the sense of fostering never-ending re-examination of beliefs - NOT
including the articles themselves.
I designed them to build on the foundation of the existing faith and
vocabulary of many already-religious people. Even fundamentalists would find
them merely incomplete, as opposed to incompatible with their beliefs. They
present a small and unsatisfying target for attack.
What they *should* undermine is beliefs that are inconsistent with a
rationalist worldview. Any system must begin with unprovables, and mine
hardly goes beyond 'cogito ergo sum', except for the assertion that 'sum'
because I was made by a higher power. This seems harmless (were we made by
ourselves? by a lower power? just happened? we're turtle poop?), considering
how much is gained by piggybacking on the preexisting emotional commitments
to such a belief, and the neutrality of a 'higher power' that comes without
the baggage of commandments to smite the enemy, etc..
But I'm leaning towards "Church of Perpetual Revelation", as having a better
acronym than CCR, which reminds me of an old rock group. CPR has nice
lifesaving associations.
Tom Parsons