SLUniverse Forums - View Single Post - Democratic Government of the Metaverse...again

Caliandris · 07-19-2008, 08:17 AM

[4:30] Caliandris Pendragon: I have already said that you are free to do it, in an earlier response. That you can doesn't mean you should. HOwever, we will have to agree to differ on it, as I can't argue all weekend I have work to do
[4:31] Ashcroft Burnham: I have work to do, too. But the point is simply this: the freedoms that you are defending include the freedom to do things, such as founding the Metaverse Republic, with which you disagree.
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: to a point... you seem to see everything in black and white
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that metaphors like that are helpful in a discussion of this nature - can you express what you mean without using that metaphor?
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: (Or, indeed, any metaphor).
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: I can, but you're a hopeless case
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that that's fair.
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: so I decline to really...
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Hopeless in the sense that I don't agree with you?
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Or in some other sense?
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: Hopeless in the sense that you are stuck on your course and won't be waylaid
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: so there is very little point in my expending my remaining brain cells in arguing about it
[4:33] Ashcroft Burnham: I won't be waylaid by something that I believe to be wrong, of course not. It'd be stupid to do so.
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: I respect that
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: That I won't change my view on the basis of anything other than reasoning which I believe to be cogent does not make me irrational or intransigent - quite the converse, in fact.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: but it is possible to discuss things without taking a polarised view and being so literal in your arguments
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: things can be black and white, good and bad
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't agree that being literal is a bad thing.
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Being non-literal simply obfuscates.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Clarity and precision is important.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: it can illumnate
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Metaphor can illustrate, but can never describe a contentious claim on its own.
[4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: a number of important concepts are conveyed in story and symbolism
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The reason for that is that one has to understand and accept at least part of what the person is saying in order to decrypt the metaphor.
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The metaphor requires more interpretation than non-metaphoric expression.
[4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: and cannot be reduced to literal arguments... many of the thins that you are talking about will be quite grey in their circumstances and in their outcome
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Therefore, less is communicated, and more is left to be added by the recipient.
[4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: If the recipient does not have that information in the first place, clarity is not achieved.
[4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: The recipient will not have that information if that information is a conclusion that stems from a premise with which the recipient disagrees.
[4:36] Caliandris Pendragon: what I like about SL... is that it allows for exploration in a non linear non literal non disciplined wa
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: way*
[4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That's a sudden change of topic - do you accept the point about metaphors?
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: NO... you knew what I meant
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: asking for constant elucidation seems very hostile
[4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That you enjoy using metaphors doesn't mean that the points that I make above have any less force.
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: that's true
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: and ore gentle
[4:38] Caliandris Pendragon: more*
[4:38] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm sorry that you find it hostile - it's not the intention (unless in "hostile" you include anything that might have the effect of enabling me to find errors in your arguments). The intention is to understand what you mean more precisely.
[4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: OK... I don't mean that I dislike being pulled up for a real explanation
[4:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Many people do, I find...
[4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: but you have asked me to explain myself more often in the last ew minutes of our discussion than I have encountered in the whole four and a half yearsI have been there
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps you've been talking to the wrong people so far ;-)
[4:40] Caliandris Pendragon: it trips up communication and conversation to constantly be asking for definitions and explanations
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: I only ask for them when they are necessary.
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: If your style happens to call for many explanations, then it's no criticism of me that I ask for them,
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: .
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: My concern in particular when you refer to things being "grey" is that you might have fallen into the fallacy of the excluded middle.
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: if you want to know what people feel and think, you have to try not to jump on every word and ask them to explain it... well all I can say is that I haven't had anyone else ask for so much explanation...
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: you talk in political phrases and interpret wat I say in political terms
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: That isn't a valid criticism of me so asking :-)
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I have no interest in politics really
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: and I dislike it
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: I gathered that ;-)
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I am interested in people, passionately
[4:42] Caliandris Pendragon: I think politics is mostly self-serving and boring
[4:43] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, that depends what you include in "politics". Party politics, perhaps, but the fact of government is not "mostly self-serving". (Whether it's boring is, of course, entirely subjective). The reality is that it's a better world in which we have a government than in which we have anarchy. We at the Metaverse Republic passionaltely believe in the rule of law in the same way that you are passionate about people. The rule of law benefits people. People are often prejudiced agianst government by bad experiences with particular governments, which is understandable, but that does not mean that one is better off overall in an anarchy.
[4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We are doing what we are doing because we genuinely believe that it will bring considerable benefits both to individuals and the virtual world economy as a whole.
[4:44] Caliandris Pendragon: If you wish me to express myself clearly, here you are: I acknowledge that you have the freedom to do what you want to do. That doesn't mean I am not entitled to an opinion about it. That I want an opinion about it does not mean necessarily that I intend to curtail your freedom or to assert mine and deny you yours
[4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We know that not everyone agrees with us, but not everyone is going to agree on any one proposition about governance, so that's inevitable.

07-19-2008, 08:17 AM	#54 (permalink)
Caliandris Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: London Posts: 32 My Mood:	what can I say? 6 [4:30] Caliandris Pendragon: I have already said that you are free to do it, in an earlier response. That you can doesn't mean you should. HOwever, we will have to agree to differ on it, as I can't argue all weekend I have work to do [4:31] Ashcroft Burnham: I have work to do, too. But the point is simply this: the freedoms that you are defending include the freedom to do things, such as founding the Metaverse Republic, with which you disagree. [4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: to a point... you seem to see everything in black and white [4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that metaphors like that are helpful in a discussion of this nature - can you express what you mean without using that metaphor? [4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: (Or, indeed, any metaphor). [4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: I can, but you're a hopeless case [4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that that's fair. [4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: so I decline to really... [4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Hopeless in the sense that I don't agree with you? [4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Or in some other sense? [4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: Hopeless in the sense that you are stuck on your course and won't be waylaid [4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: so there is very little point in my expending my remaining brain cells in arguing about it [4:33] Ashcroft Burnham: I won't be waylaid by something that I believe to be wrong, of course not. It'd be stupid to do so. [4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: I respect that [4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: That I won't change my view on the basis of anything other than reasoning which I believe to be cogent does not make me irrational or intransigent - quite the converse, in fact. [4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: but it is possible to discuss things without taking a polarised view and being so literal in your arguments [4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: things can be black and white, good and bad [4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't agree that being literal is a bad thing. [4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Being non-literal simply obfuscates. [4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: no [4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Clarity and precision is important. [4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: it can illumnate [4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Metaphor can illustrate, but can never describe a contentious claim on its own. [4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: a number of important concepts are conveyed in story and symbolism [4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The reason for that is that one has to understand and accept at least part of what the person is saying in order to decrypt the metaphor. [4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The metaphor requires more interpretation than non-metaphoric expression. [4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: and cannot be reduced to literal arguments... many of the thins that you are talking about will be quite grey in their circumstances and in their outcome [4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Therefore, less is communicated, and more is left to be added by the recipient. [4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: If the recipient does not have that information in the first place, clarity is not achieved. [4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: The recipient will not have that information if that information is a conclusion that stems from a premise with which the recipient disagrees. [4:36] Caliandris Pendragon: what I like about SL... is that it allows for exploration in a non linear non literal non disciplined wa [4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: way* [4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That's a sudden change of topic - do you accept the point about metaphors? [4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: NO... you knew what I meant [4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: asking for constant elucidation seems very hostile [4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That you enjoy using metaphors doesn't mean that the points that I make above have any less force. [4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: that's true [4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: and ore gentle [4:38] Caliandris Pendragon: more* [4:38] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm sorry that you find it hostile - it's not the intention (unless in "hostile" you include anything that might have the effect of enabling me to find errors in your arguments). The intention is to understand what you mean more precisely. [4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: OK... I don't mean that I dislike being pulled up for a real explanation [4:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Many people do, I find... [4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: but you have asked me to explain myself more often in the last ew minutes of our discussion than I have encountered in the whole four and a half yearsI have been there [4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps you've been talking to the wrong people so far ;-) [4:40] Caliandris Pendragon: it trips up communication and conversation to constantly be asking for definitions and explanations [4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: I only ask for them when they are necessary. [4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: If your style happens to call for many explanations, then it's no criticism of me that I ask for them, [4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: . [4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: My concern in particular when you refer to things being "grey" is that you might have fallen into the fallacy of the excluded middle. [4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: if you want to know what people feel and think, you have to try not to jump on every word and ask them to explain it... well all I can say is that I haven't had anyone else ask for so much explanation... [4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: you talk in political phrases and interpret wat I say in political terms [4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: That isn't a valid criticism of me so asking :-) [4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I have no interest in politics really [4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: and I dislike it [4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: I gathered that ;-) [4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I am interested in people, passionately [4:42] Caliandris Pendragon: I think politics is mostly self-serving and boring [4:43] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, that depends what you include in "politics". Party politics, perhaps, but the fact of government is not "mostly self-serving". (Whether it's boring is, of course, entirely subjective). The reality is that it's a better world in which we have a government than in which we have anarchy. We at the Metaverse Republic passionaltely believe in the rule of law in the same way that you are passionate about people. The rule of law benefits people. People are often prejudiced agianst government by bad experiences with particular governments, which is understandable, but that does not mean that one is better off overall in an anarchy. [4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We are doing what we are doing because we genuinely believe that it will bring considerable benefits both to individuals and the virtual world economy as a whole. [4:44] Caliandris Pendragon: If you wish me to express myself clearly, here you are: I acknowledge that you have the freedom to do what you want to do. That doesn't mean I am not entitled to an opinion about it. That I want an opinion about it does not mean necessarily that I intend to curtail your freedom or to assert mine and deny you yours [4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We know that not everyone agrees with us, but not everyone is going to agree on any one proposition about governance, so that's inevitable.