{from Joel Judd 950209.0800 CST}
Bill wrote:
Living with other people is a problem of collision avoidance in
hyperspace.
Well, that explains it! And it's catchy! From time to time I've seen
some good candidates for csg-l bumper stickers. I can just imagine
stopping for gas at a truck stop in Nevada and seeing the above or
"Behavior: The Control of Perception" on a rotating display next to the
cash register. #-) {that's a bandaged head; I'm feeling a little giddy
this morning}
Actually, I've noticed myself realizing that I prefer less and less the
confrontational situations that used to seem to make life worthwhile.
It used to be fun to confront classroom teachers, or get a little jab in
here and there (well, OK, it STILL is sometimes), or have to prove
myself. But it's become rather tiring, for lack of a better word.
I think that's why I'll never make a million bucks (though one might ask
why I have the impression I NEED to in the first place). I'm happy if I
can use what I've learned for the benefit of others, and be able to
provide for my family doing so. The more I can do that without having
to resolve conflicts with others, the more pleasant things are.
Yet I also think that may be a long-winded description of "anti-social."
In any case, it's also a long-winded way of saying "I think I understand
'collision avoidance in hyperspace'."
Tom {on gun use}:
I am trying to understand why several participants on the net seem, to
me, to to talk about one kind of inanimate object as though it plays a
role of "cause" to the behavior called killing...Perhaps I am only
misreading some of you. I want to know.
My short reply to this is no, I don't think weapons are causes, they're
means.
If we were to remove guns, etc...would killing stop?
Well, the first recorded murder in Judeo-Christian literature occurred
with the jawbone of an ass--if that's not variable means to an end, I
don't know what is.
You can argue about what kind of statistics are used to compare, say,
Japan and the US on murders with guns. But the fact remains, if guns
aren't around, nobody gets killed with them. And the question remains,
in an urban, technological setting that is much of America today, with
plenty of food and other amenities practically at our fingertips, what
need is there for guns, much less semi-automatic assault rifles?
I brought up the gun scenario in the first place because I was trying to
work out what legal and social responsibility, informed by something
like PCT, would say about a profession like gun dealing. It's pretty
hard for me to conceive of a dealership that stocks AK-47s outside of
Cincinnati in a position to cloak itself in the Constitution or
simplistic platitudes and plead innocence. If you're going to take
advantage of society's members for your own benefit, then those members
might hold you responsible for some "indirect" effects.
But I didn't elaborate because I can understand that a model of behavior
is neutral with respect to what the organism does; other organisms make
judgments about behavior, not the model. And that's OK.
Joel
···
TO: CSG-L INTERNET Any user on the Internet, not at DESE Proj. Box
FROM: JUDDJ DESEINST Joel Judd - DESE - Division of Instruction
DATE: February 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Re: More or less responsible