From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 04:07:42 MDT
Commenting on some of the Harvey Lee Max points (I wonder if
there is an EverQuest character with that name...).
As I recall around a month ago, I had a debate with someone on
the list where we both started hurling principles at each other.
I think I may have started it (I'll have to remember in the
future to charge admission to the cat fights).
The impression I'm left with was that it got into a rock-paper-scissors
situation with the different principles having different merits
vis-a-vis each other. That certainly in my mind makes for a
rather dynamic philosophy. It also suggests that the relative
merits of the principles may be very context sensitive.
I can think of environments, such as the "future" portrayed in the
Terminator movies where "practical optimism", "open society" and
"self-direction" might be the trump cards. An alternate future
where the luddites held the upper hand might place an emphasis
on "intelligent technology" and "rational thinking". A police
state designed to direct all thoughts towards the "party line"
might want to play "perpetual progress", "self-transformantion"
and "self-direction".
It could be that we argue the relative importance of various
principles given our personal biases for the futures we most
desire and are most afraid of. Unfortunately we don't have a
body of "case law" to guide us with respect to individual
discussions. And we also don't have a variety of contexts in
which interpretations of the principles can be viewed with respect
to their consequences. I suspect the "misunderstandings" may
be related to the time frame (and assumed environments) in
which one is subjectively applying the principles.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST