Pike's ghost

António Pedro Marques · 29 Nov 2011, 16:45 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:45:14 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>
	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com> <4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>
	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com> <4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>
	<4ED5064C.8000004 at gmail.com> <4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED50C1A.2060103 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 16:37):
>
>> James Wynn wrote:
>>> It is a logical error that people fall into.
>>
>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
>
> Because the text says so.

If the text says so and everyone can go look and everyone is supposed to 
have read it once, isn't it a bit tiresome to have to repeat at each turn 
what the text says?

> But --guess what?-- that's NOT the only theory.
> Marc has posited that the whole event and Silk's communication with the
> Outsider was engineered by Pas and Kypris. I can bring up technical
> refutations ("Pas is dead.") but I fully know that I would like the story
> less if the enlightenment were a ruse. That's also the primary reason I
> don't believe Lee's "Grand Unified Theory" of aliens=gods or that the
> ultimate goals of the Hierodules is evil. Nietzsche said that the mind is
> the slave of the body. Well, often intricately conceived refutations are
> actually diplomats for our /preferences/. And that potential is always
> lurking in each of our discourses on both sides.

If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations, why point out that 
this or that action have unspeakable motivations?

>>> They argue from authority based
>>> on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This
>>> liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely
>>> true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position.
>>>
>>> [...]What I'm
>>> really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite
>>> position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really
>>> thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
>>
>> And what in your view constitutes smugness?
>
> I think I just described it.

If so, one could argue that smugness is in the eye of the beholder.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net