From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 16:56:13 MST
Mike resonates with
> I try to take the long view, past & future.
> And my point was a rejoinder to Damien's
> implicit absolutism (/bar bold rhetoric).
>
> On rarity--time will tell. It is certainly the
> case that in the aggregate, in our happy Murkin
> (and probably EC) society, most of us rarely
> have such experiences, and this is good.
It is certainly also the case in the non-aggregate
temporal distilled mode that happy *or* unhappy (not
to say clinically depressed) Murkins/EC/PC/anon
cannot have any experiences that they are unaware
of, due to the personal and incidental nature of
experience itself.
> Low-trust societies might have a different set
> of statistics;
Most doubtless.
> what of our ancestors' ritualized combat-of-champions
> in front of two tribes at the river (assuming the
> reports of such in some groups are not fabricated?
And what not of it? What not also of gladiator contests,
dreadnought diplomacy, risk, monopoly and the rest of
our temporally distilled entertainments and fascinations
(not to say obsessions)?
> What of cases (in the Pacific rim) where wives
> throw acid in their husband's mistresses' faces
> in plain sight of onlookers who know both parties?
Yes indeed! What *OF* them?
> Which outlook is skewed, in the long run?
I have been researching this question, and believe
that a Machian perspective is manifestly required.
Two frames in relative motion within GR don't
entirely eschew temporal distillation, even in
those cases (such as the husbands') in which
the ordinary physico-logical context distortion
is tantamount to cultural retrodiction, even to
the point of atavism. More could be said, but
then (probably unfortunately) more could always
be said.
> > I find more accurate your signature remark
>
> Ah. So commonality equals accuracy, does it?
That depends on the frame of reference again.
The only commonality that can be skewed repeatedly
(as either an outlook or as introspection) may
Murkinize any kind of temporal distillation, as I
explained before. Accuracy will therefore hardly
obtain in cases that Murkins evolve into, for
example, Munchins.
> I must amend my thesaurus. (insert genial grin here)
Yeah, me too! Boy is it out of date! ;-)
> >Lee, who is back in sarcasm mode for once.
>
> Are we "in violent agreement?" Ahem.
So far as I can gather. Kudos!
> And oh yeah, if the two (1898?) Supreme Court
> cases upholding that corporations are persons
> under the 14th Amendment are going to be upheld,
> then I want corporations to be liable for felony
> convictions
Right!
> under the terms above (only severe things are
> felonies, death or banishment the only penalties).
I could hardly fail to disagree less.
> If that seems too hard on the shareholders, then
> make the corporate officers liable, the same way
> Yamamoto got strung up for atrocities committed
> by his subordinates in the Philippines about
> which all agreed he had no knowledge.
According to the testimony supplied by the aviators
who shot him down, or strung him up, whatever---Y
himself did not indeed have more than indirect,
virtual knowledge of the atrocities that he ordered.
Yet that does not exculpate him in my eyes.
> Hey, fair's fair.
Yes, but so long as we indeed are fair!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:35 MST