<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Jef Allbright wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Thomas wrote: </pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[...]</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I get
pleasure from our conceptual commerce and
tolerate a fairly high gradient of cognitive
dissonance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Isn't tolerating cognitive dissonance and example of avoidance, rather than of an appreciation of the merits of constructive conflict?</pre>
</blockquote>
Context matters. I don't appreciated fanatical suicidal violence against
progress and I don't think myself a moral coward to avoid violent confrontation.
That I tolerate verbal friction (here with you) demonstrates at least a mild
appreciation of the merits of constructive conflict. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[...]</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">First of all, let me tell you that I tend to get a bit uppity when people appear to suggest that I might actually promote moral negatives such as violence. Second, could you switch to plain text and standard quoting style?</pre>
</blockquote>
1. I appreciate the conflict. 2. Is this coming to you as plain text now?
I'm sorry. I don't see the nonstandard quoting style. I'd be happy accomodate
if I could see what you see. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">My point to you today, and last time we touched on this, is that the difference between persuasion, coercion, and force is little more than context. Can you show me a clear dividing line? Likewise for conflict and competition. It might help to keep in mind that no such categories actually exist in "reality"; they are only artifacts of our attempts to make sense of our shared observations.</pre>
</blockquote>
Jef, I grant you all the above except two words: "little more." Speaking
in a discreet context (volitional human commerce) those terms differ significantly.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Morality in its extensible sense hinges on an effective understanding of context. Violence in one context can be seen as irredeamably destructive and thus immoral. The same violent actions for a "right" cause can be seen as morally good. But it's important that you don't confuse this "morality within context" with ungrounded "moral relativity."</pre>
</blockquote>
"Good" violence relies on prior "bad" violence and it really doesn't make
it "right," does it? What makes revenge such a sacred idea? It certainly
won't get us off this planet. We can understand it per EP, but for the sake
of progress, we'd better stop sanctioning it and turn to prevention and healing.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Calibrating question: Would you choose to use deadly force to protect your family if you could see no practical alternative?</pre>
</blockquote>
Why would someone who espouses increased awareness hand me a context of
awareness of horror only, who champions expanded future interests limit me
to no alternative, who seeks effective principles of interaction offer me
the principle of deadly force and ask me to calibrate my morality to such
a context? Jef, lets not discuss morality outside the context of choice.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3036DFA70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">[...]
I'd like to ask for clarification of your statement about violence and "simple levels of human commerce." I note that you're using "commerce" in the very general sense meaning any exchange of value, including this discussion, but it seems inappropriate to the point of absurdity to suggest that I would "try to teach...that violence is acceptable" in such a context. Was your question intended to incite a reaction, or was it a sincere expression of your understanding of my behavior?
- Jef</pre>
</blockquote>
Maybe you didn't mean to speak in such unqualified terms when you said,
"you will need to learn that conflict at one level leads to cooperation and
growth at a higher level of organization. Avoiding conflict leads to stagnation
and eventual non-existence of that which you value."<br>
<br>
*Violent* conflict is not ruled out above. Dead men don't cooperate and
grow no matter how complex your organization. I think you could make a case
against pathological avoidance of conflict, but in most cases conflict slows
progress, especially violent conflict. Convince me an attack on a space elevator
would lead to cooperation. Counterviolence grants violence the status of
an operating principle. <br>
<br>
I know nothing of your behavior beyond what you've shown me on this list,
but invalidating definitions by dodging the specific context (volitional human
commerce) seems evasive. You suggested taxation in a recent post (Sorry,
I can't cite it. I deleted it.). Taxation relies on the threat of violence.
I'd like to see us start thinking with Keith's "get 'er done" spirit in the
area of expanding human freedom. Free happy people don't become suicidal
fanatics. -- Thomas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>