[Martin Taylor 950907 17:20]
Marc Abrams (950906.1600)
When would someone be "interested" in learning? How does one "test" an
assumption? (I have some ideas). _When_ should assumptions be tested?
Good questions. A suitable case for examining them hinges on:
I think his [Oded's] _ideology_ is &^%*&^%*.
Now, I have re-read ALL of Oded's postings since you started this thread by
in effect calling Bill Powers a Socialist because he had some questions
about the nature of economic interaction (a long-standing interest of Bill's,
from a PCT standpoint). Including signatures and quoted material, the total
of Oded's postings is 161 lines. Not much.
In Oded's writings, I can discover no ideology whatever. What I do see is:
Oded Maler (950904)
It took me some time to understand how deeply is the capitalistic dogma
("free" markets, competition) rooted in the minds of many US citizens
(and more and more over the world).
So we see that Oded's ideology, if he has one, is not capitalistic dogma.
That much IS clear.
In response to your question "Thanks Oded, What is your dogma of choice?"
he responded:
Oded Maler (950905)
I don't think I have an alternative dogma to offer, but I think that
I'm more skeptical and more aware to the relativity of points of view.
I don't accept the current socio-economical international state of
affairs as the best of possible worlds, although practically it might
be the case that there is nothing one can do about it but join the
race.
That, so far as I can see, is the entire content on which you decide what
his ideology is, and that it is "&^%*&^%*".
My own personal interpretation, never having met Oded, is that his economic
ideology is "skeptical" or "uncommitted." In other words, I take him at
his word. He looks for a better way, being unconvinced that "your system of
values" is optimum, although, again quoting Oded, "your world surely makes
sense to you" even though sometimes "your discourse [is] incomprehensible
and bizarre for [him]."
Now I wonder where, in what Oded has written in his two messages, you have
discovered the encryption that permitted you to be so definite about what
his ideology is, and to determine that it is so hateful that you can describe
it only in comic-strip swear symbols?
Is it perhaps a good instance to use as an example for following up your
questions?
How do we ask questions without "provoking" others?
You might, for example, have responded to Oded by asking "In what way
do you think capitalism fails, from a PCT viewpoint?" Or, "Yes, we belong
to different cultural communities, and I find it hard to know what is
bizarre about my discourse; could you elaborate?"
It is _not_ easy having a "conversation" on the net.
It's not hard when you maintain a (perhaps false) assumption that the
people reading your writing are (1) people of goodwill, though perhaps
misguided, (2) of at least adequate intelligence to be interested
in sincere questions, and (3) come from a wide variety of intellectual,
cultural and national backgrounds, and neither know nor necessarily believe
what you take to be incontrovertible facts.
Point (3) is the hardest to get used to, and to work with or around.
Martin