# Final Oded Post, The beginning of.....

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/final-oded-post-the-beginning-of/4402>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [September 7, 1995, 8:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/final-oded-post-the-beginning-of/4402 "1995-09-07T20:49:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 1995, 8:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/final-oded-post-the-beginning-of/4402/1 "1995-09-07T20:49:07Z")

</div>

> From Marc Abrams (950906.1600)

I had a phone conversation with Bill P. about an hour ago and upon some  
reflection I would like to put the Oded Maler thread to bed.

I realize that I may have made my responses to Oded personal. That was a  
mistake. He very well might be a fine person. I don't know him. I think his  
\_ideology\_ is &^%\*&^%\*. But then again thats simply my opinion. My responses  
to Martin, Tom, Bill, and Mary were NOT meant to incite. They were meant to  
\_provoke\_ \_thinking\_ not only about what I said but about \_what\_ was going on  
between us. Those questions were sincere.

All of us seem to have made \_assumptions\_ about intent from \_observing\_  
"behavior". Not very PCTish. Might we have "learned" more by actually testing  
those assumptions. Or were we \_not\_ interested in really "learning".

When would someone be "interested" in learning? How does one "test" an  
assumption? (I have some ideas). \_When\_ should assumptions be tested? (can't  
test everyone, it would "imobilize" us) How do we ask questions without  
"provoking" others?

It is \_not\_ easy having a "conversation" on the net. All the more reason to  
test our assumptions. Unfortunately that might make for super long and boring  
threads. Anyone have a suggestion?

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/a9adbd/32.png) [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 1995, 9:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/final-oded-post-the-beginning-of/4402/2 "1995-09-07T21:58:17Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Netnews\_Server](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Netnews\_Server](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Netnews_Server)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 1995, 12:04am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/final-oded-post-the-beginning-of/4402/3 "1995-09-08T00:04:49Z")

</div>

> From Marc Abrams (950907.1920)

Interesting how your post focuses on \_my\_ actions. How do you describe \_your\_  
involvement?

You don't get it. I didn't post this (950906.1600) to get your suggestions on  
how \_I\_ might better approximate  
\_your\_ perception of how I should act. I was and am interested in how \_we\_  
interacted. I am not going to  
get into Oded any more. Your post below does not answer any of my questions  
with relationship to \_you\_  
and this thread.

One final comment. When someone calls your thinking "bizarre", unintelligble,  
and not from this planet, and  
then equates your views as being as closed minded as a fundementalist preacher,  
without explaining why.  
That in my neighborhood is #$%#% (Brooklyn NY translation, #$%^&\* = Bullshit).  
I guess you didn't "see"  
that in his posts. And you certainly didn't grow up in my neighborhood 🙂

If your interested in exploring the interactions I'd love to hear from you. If  
your interested in "proving" your  
point, save your breath.

> &nbsp;&nbsp;mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA writes:  
> [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 &^%\*&^%\*.

Why? Please explain.