Personal point of view:

I am an electronics engineer/technician. I've been doing this for perhaps thirty years. I am reasonably good at it. My specialty is troubleshooting and failure analysis and "engineering rework". I have also done original design work [I think of it as "fixing" a function that doesn't exist yet]. I see circuits as functions, with inputs and outputs, a defined purpose and a source of energy.

Definition:

meme :
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

Cultures: I see cultures as human populations that differ in the memes they have evolved to both perpetuate their culture and solve the survival needs of individual members. From my point of view I call these meme "functions", that serve defined purposes for the members of the culture and combine to form the system that is that culture. The "inputs" to these functions are the same for every culture: human beings with their evolved nature and basic intelligence. Cultures that have evolved meme that serve only to perpetuate the culture but do not meet the needs of individual humans I call "broken" cultures and their meme, "broken functions".

Purpose of philosophy: To fix "broken" meme functions. A philosopher analyzes the ideas of a culture, distills the real from the imagined and improves these ideas to the benefit of the individuals in that society. It is important that the philosopher be OBJECTIVE. Meaning: objectively looking at the ideas as functions contributing to the benefit of that societies individuals [the output] but also looking objectively at the individuals using these ideas [the input] to determine their true nature. Any error or omission in understanding human nature or the nature of reality results in a broken function.

Criticism's of RoR writers:

Philosophy is not a chess game. Many otherwise serious discussions are "shot gunned", someone sees a pattern they think they recognize and shot gun a reply, introducing all of the elements of the "pattern" they think they recognize including references to every book by every author they've ever read even slightly pertaining to the subject. This is not real analysis. Pattern recognition is easy. Linear, point by point analysis is very hard. These same "shot gunners" fancy themselves as chess masters, simultaneously playing many different opponents on many different threads, jumping from thread to thread. You may be a great chess player but proving that is not what philosophical discussions are about. You may be obfuscating and distracting from the flow of thought rather than contributing to it. Some of your points are well taken, your breadth of knowledge may be appreciated, but certainly some of your ideas may not be pertinent to the point the other person is trying to make. Try to understand the points other people are making before blasting away with a 2500 word post.

Disagreements:

A disagreement is the energy source that fuels discussions. Add goodwill to disagreement and great progress can be made. It is not a game of “snuff out disagreement in the least time”. Try to find a single point of agreement, check premises and try to add points of agreement. No matter how long it takes people of goodwill and reason and patience should be able to eventually agree.

Post 1

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 5:22pm

[sanction]

I would like to nominate myself as one of the writers guilty of the aforementioned imperfection. Even so, I sanctioned Mike's short essay here -- and without a flinch. I often come off as a pretty aggressive guy around here, and I'm really sorry if I've even intimidated anyone here, ever.

Part of that is due to the combination of the somewhat-impersonalized medium of online communication, together with my staccato** thinking style. It is difficult to write in a style you don't think in -- and staccato is basically a "But what about this?!" and an in-your-face style of thought. Due to this combination (the medium + my style) I've made many enemies, but I want to say that I've turned many others around and befriended them, too! What can I say, really? I am just such a likable guy!

;-)

There is still another reason that I have, sometimes, come off as "argumentative" (rather than coffee-talk-ish or "mellow") -- I came up from the trenches among some pretty tough critics. I started posting here by taking on GS2.0 (Stolyarov) -- and lemme' tell you: he "ain't nuthin' nice" when you find yourself in disagreement with him. But he is a pussy cat compared to a Daniel Barnes, or a Brendan. And, yet again, these guys (while being more intelligent) would pale in comparison to the kinds of bumps & bruises you'd get disagreeing with a Nathan Hawking.

In my online life then, you could say that I "grew up" in some pretty "hard times." If you're a hound and you had never gotten to eat from the common bowl -- except when you fought tooth and nail for it -- then its difficult to just sit down and patiently wait -- in kind manners -- for others to tell you that they are now finished.

I also think that the truth is important enough to fight for.

Ed

**marked by short clear-cut playing or singing of tones or chords <a staccato style>
(m-w.com)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/12, 5:26pm)

Post 2

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 8:13pm

Mike,

If you take the Rights thread as an example of your points, and I think you do, then I would remind you that my first post in that thread both began and ended with points of agreement. In all your overflowing goodwill, I think you missed them because you went ahead to “vehemently disagree” with my “prescription for pacifism.”

Pacifism! You are the first person ever to accuse me of pacifism. No one has ever listened to what I’ve said and responded that it sounded like pacifism. “Try to understand the points other people are making,” my ass.

Jon

Post 3

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 8:40pm

Jon,

You talk about man's nature as a conceptual, volitional being, then you deny their necessity:

"No action on the part of any individual is required. An individual needs not understand, nor be read, nor come out swinging for his rights for their continuing existence."

Is it too hard to make the association between "No action is required" and pacifism? Is it too much to ask for you to think about what I'm saying before replying like that? You simply reassert what I deny, then you turn into a smart ass when I deny your reassertion.

Besides, I didn't call YOU a pacifist. I said you'd written a prescription for pacifism. Very much not the same thing.

Post 4

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 10:35pm

“Is it too hard to make the association between "No action is required" and pacifism?”

It is a silly association that no one lecturing about goodwill and understanding in disagreement should ever make.

“Is it too much to ask for you to think about what I'm saying before replying like that?”

Go back and read my first post in the Rights thread. I make points of agreement at the start and at the end. You never responded to those. Do they demonstrate that I understood any part of your position? If yes, why didn’t you acknowledge as much at the time? If no, why didn’t you explain at the time the way in which I understood you incorrectly?

You are the one lecturing about this, Mike, so answer my questions. Why didn’t you correct me when I wrote what I thought you were saying? Why did you instead make a ridiculous association?

It seems to me that you didn’t follow your own points about how to disagree with goodwill and understanding, or I don’t understand those points.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 2/12, 10:41pm)

Post 5

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 10:57pm

"It is a silly association"

Ah, so you CAN'T make the association...

No lecture about goodwill will ever make a dent in the fact that you will never change your preexisting view in any supposed discussion of anything so no, I would never presume to lecture you about it. Given your last post on the "rights" thread I don't think you have any business discussing rights. You will do whatever feels good to you, principles be damned, other people rights be damned. You throw in "if the judge agrees". What, you can't think for yourself? Your principle is "If the law as it exists says it's ok, and I get what I want, then that makes it ok". Some principle. Do you want to continue? Or do you want this to descend into some real rudeness? I don't find it necessary to show goodwill if the context proves it is a waste of time or inappropriate.

Post 6

Monday, February 13, 2006 - 1:13pm

> Many otherwise serious discussions are "shot gunned"... Pattern recognition is easy. Linear, point by point analysis is very hard. These same "shot gunners" fancy themselves as chess masters, simultaneously playing many different opponents on many different threads, ...You may be obfuscating and distracting from the flow of thought.

Many excellent points, Mike!

However, may I point out in your exchange with Jon in posts 2-5, another "criticism of RoR posters" that applies to *both* of you: Don't carry over other threads into a hijacking of the current topic; don't carry 'feuds' or one-upmanship or personal bitternesses over either. Why do this on a public forum as opposed to private exchange of emails? No one is interested. They are seldom illuminating, seldom central to the topic and never resolved. Don't post in anger. Don't post when it is only a (thinly-veiled) attack or attempt to put down the other PERSON in addition to or instead of his IDEAS. Don't allow slights and put downs to escalate in the first place which leads to an ongoing Hatfield and McCoy thing. (Remember from a few months back the endless Andy Postema vs. MSK waste of time, or the Lindsay Perigo vs. Michael Newberry food fight on esthetics..and a half dozen other wastes of readers' time?)

Phil

Post 7

Monday, February 13, 2006 - 8:41pm

Phil,

Thanks for your kind remarks and your critical observations. I consider myself a "work in progress".

I was hoping someone would notice my analogy comparing philosophers to "engineers" who fix broken meme "functions".

The "criticisms" part of my post is something I've been thinking of for some time after observing some of the marathon threads that were going on. I tried to word it as inoffensively as possible. Ed was involved in many of the threads but he wasn't one of the people I was talking about. Ed is amazing. He's gone down many a rabbit hole with various opponents and always popped up relatively unscathed and with his sense of humor intact.

Rick Giles posted a great defense of the value of disagreement just before he signed off:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0715_2.shtml#47

Post 8

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:53am

Mike,

If you think -- for one damn minute -- that you can just come in here and simply write a few nice and supportive things about me, and that, somehow, is going to change things between us, and that I would then immediately forgive your past transgressions against me, and all-of-a-sudden open up more (with regard to respect and leniency) in my discussions with you ...

... well ... that's where you're right.

:-)

Ed

Post 9

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 8:57pm

Cripes!

When opponents do a 'group-hug', that really kills the point of any thread. (Won't see THAT on UFC!)

Bummer.

Guess I'll go back to watching Days Of Our Lives, or Oprah...or sumpthin'.

LLAP
J:D

Post 10

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:37pm

Opponents, schmoponents -- all of my intellectual enemies/adversaries, are potential friends. It's the ones who refuse to ruminate and banter and then ruminate and banter, some more -- that I have no truck with.

Ed
["Like organic evolution, critical dialogue is wasteful, inefficient, and violent, but the only alternative is stagnation." -- Wallace Matson]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/15, 10:38pm)

Post 11

Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 8:27am

Ed,

Nice quote. Where do you FIND these things? I know, there's a website....

John,

"Group Hug"..? Pshaw. Unless you call a choke hold a "hug".

Circling, looking for an opening... [Wipes blood off face..]

Post 12

Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 11:43am

Mike,

================
Nice quote. Where do you FIND these things? I know, there's a website....
================

That's like asking Michelangelo how he gathered the details of the Sistine Chapel! I'm a quote-whore, Mike, what can I say?

:-)

I started out with books of quotes (eg. Most Brilliant Thoughts of All Time (In Two Lines or Less) -- by John M. Shanahan). Online searches for quotes then led me to a slew of places. I don't even bookmark them anymore, though (eg. bartleby.com stands out in my memory as really good).

================
Circling, looking for an opening... [Wipes blood off face..]
================

How "apropos" (I don't even REALLY know what that word means!), as I just got my butt kicked by mutants in Doom 3. I hate violent mutants! "Kill 'em all" -- I say.

Ed
p.s. That Matson quote actually came from the book: Philosophic Thought of Ayn ...

Post 13

Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 12:21pm

From French - a propos - relevant
or
Greek - apropos - just desserts
[not really, but it sure seems Greek to me....;-))]

Post 14

Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 1:30pm

Thanks Rev.,

:-)

Ed

Post 15

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 1:39am

Ed:

     Clearly...after Mike's 'choke-hold' style of what I call 'group-hug'...what you really need is the (Ka-Chunk, POW) shotgun.

     Take the 'Red' pill, and get with it, man! (ok, the Chaingun, whatever..but...stop the diplomacy stuff --- take all these mutants down).

     I mean, it does seem 'apropos', after all   :D

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/19, 1:56am)

Post 16

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 5:00am

It's "just deserts" with one "s".

Post 17

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 5:39am

Calop:

Ah-h-h, but...WHICH 's'? The 'red' one, or, the blue one?

LLAP
J:D

Post 18

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 8:33am

Poor Cal - so literal, just can't see the humor of plays on words...;-))

Post 19

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 11:31am