Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[split] big companies, free software and unicorns
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:47 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

CasperVector wrote:
So I do not doubt that there is a big likelihood that Marx was intellectually dishonest in The Poverty of Philosophy; however, as noted above, Marx himself changed his idea in Capital. I do not consider it intellectually honest to base the criticism of some person's doctrine upon the intellectual dishonesty just in one or two early publications by said person, and particularly in connection with the following assessment:

CasperVector ... I pointed to TPoP and THF, but I could drum up more of the same in both later Marx, and in Engel's explication of Marx's "innovations". So it's no stretch to place "Marxism" in such a light, given the revisionism involved in its establishment as a doctrine (including the quoted "assessment" of what the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute consider "fundamental"). If you want to discuss Das Kapital (in unexpurgated form), or the Communist Manifesto (both surely "fundamental"), then I think I could make a good case for both a lack of clarity (if not downright obfuscation), and dishonesty. Or elsewhere, say, Marx's vacillation WRT the Paris Commune ... nothing supports your claim that my statements (or lack of "intellectual honesty", hah!) are false because I cited only those two "early publications" as examples. I could have included Engel's "Anti-Duhring", Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-criticism", or any number of more recent deconstructivist, post-structuralist, post-marxist (etc, etc) texts which similarly obfuscate ... and made a similar charge WRT "Marxism".

I should also note that your reply, and the quote provided, focus only on Proudhon, whereas these two titles examine various other figures (Bauer, Stirner, etc) in a similarly distorted manner, and I'd argue it's no accident, as it's these figures that it was necessary for Marx to undermine in order for nascent Marxism to claim it rightful historical role [sic] ... that is intellectual dishonesty at its most sectarian, and dogmatic.

khayyam wrote:
So, if you stack the deck (ie, labelling something "impractical" ... and therefore next to "meaningless"), and treat your interlocutor in an intellectually dishonest manner, I'm going to call it as such. Now you want that this call be thought invalid because I didn't provide adequate, or "thoughtful", explication, well, I did the necessary work to come to such a conclusion, have you, or does "quite Marxist" effectively mean whatever you want it to mean?

CasperVector wrote:
In my previous post, "quite Marxist" qualified "I consider 'impractical' as severe as 'meaningless'", which you do not really seem to object to. Regarding "impractical", wasn't it acknowledge by you twice?

I got that you were alluding to Marx's absurd statement WRT "philosophers", but I didn't think that worth dignifying. Instead I focus on your ad hominum, where I become that "impractical" specimen to your robust pragmatism ... but, no, and so I called it, and how "quite Marxist", and intellectually dishonest, such a strawman argument is.

khayyam wrote:
I've provided what I think is a good challenge to any point you've presented, so I read that as another example of intellectual dishonesty.

CasperVector wrote:
Perhaps except for how the support for advocation of open source is "now found to be in error"?

No, that wasn't the focus I'd given: "technical advocation about technical problems", as I've argued, overlooks entirely the political nature of the problem such "freedom" is claiming to address. I can't keep restating my argument on that point.

khayyam wrote:
You're sidestepping the question, what sort of word is "free" in that statement/context, is it one of a "body with no force acting on it" (as in "free fall") or "without" (as in "fat free")?

CasperVector wrote:
Now I aplologise for the mis-abbreviation; is this OK?

Again, you're not answering to the question, and/or flow of the exchange ("nothing at all to do with a political condition, and so bears no resemblance to freedom whatsoever") ... but fine, I'm not responsible for the condition of your soul.

khayyam wrote:
Such an argument might pass were it the case that economic conditions were not material inputs. So, your attempt to introduce such a natural/social distinction is a non-argument.

CasperVector wrote:
I theorise that the burden of complexity in engineering activities antedates the notion of economy, let alone the effect of economic conditions. Hoare just summarised the difference in profundity between them.

Oh, so it "antedates" the physical/natural requirement for bodies to receive material inputs in order to generate outputs? I don't know what kind of "nature" you're referring to but your argument is squarely in the realm of metaphysics.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:26 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... I pointed to TPoP and THF, but I could drum up more of the same in both later Marx, and in Engel's explication of Marx's "innovations". So it's no stretch to place "Marxism" in such a light, given the revisionism involved in its establishment as a doctrine (including the quoted "assessment" of what the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute consider "fundamental"). If you want to discuss Das Kapital (in unexpurgated form), or the Communist Manifesto (both surely "fundamental"), then I think I could make a good case for both a lack of clarity (if not downright obfuscation), and dishonesty. Or elsewhere, say, Marx's vacillation WRT the Paris Commune ... nothing supports your claim that my statements (or lack of "intellectual honesty", hah!) are false because I cited only those two "early publications" as examples. I could have included Engel's "Anti-Duhring", Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-criticism", or any number of more recent deconstructivist, post-structuralist, post-marxist (etc, etc) texts which similarly obfuscate ... and made a similar charge WRT "Marxism". I should also note that your reply, and the quote provided, focus only on Proudhon, whereas these two titles examine various other figures (Bauer, Stirner, etc) in a similarly distorted manner, and I'd argue it's no accident, as it's these figures that it was necessary for Marx to undermine in order for nascent Marxism to claim it rightful historical role [sic] ... that is intellectual dishonesty at its most sectarian, and dogmatic.

In order to assess your comment on the clarity and intellectual honesty of these publications, I also need to listen from historians/philosophers/political scientists that research Marxism and are in support of it.
But this is moot, as the disagreements between us focus on whether your pursuit is practical, and not on the comparison of "impractical" to "meaningless", which you still do not seem to object to.

khayyam wrote:
I got that you were refering to Marx's absurd statement WRT "philosophers", but I didn't think that worth dignifying. Instead I focus on your ad hominum, where I become that "impractical" specimen to your robust pragmatism ... but, no, and so I called it, and how "quite Marxist", and intellectually dishonest, such a strawman argument is.

I focus on what one pursues, but feel perfectly fine if you would like to attach your personality to your pursuit.
So, is your pursuit impractical, or not, given that you have indicated twice that you do not have a practical way to it?

khayyam wrote:
No, that wasn't the focus I'd given: "technical advocation about technical problems", as I've argued, overlooks entirely the political nature of the problem such "freedom" is claiming to address. I can't keep restating my argument on that point.

However, the problem is now about convenience, and not about what you call "freedom".

khayyam wrote:
Oh, so it "antedates" the physical/natural requirement for bodies to receive material inputs in order to generate outputs? I don't know what kind of "nature" you're referring to but your argument is squarely in the realm of metaphysics.

No. However, speaking of their effects on engineering quality, economic conditions are much less fundamental (what "antedate" implied) and much less profound (as Hoare summarised) than complexity.
And even if "fundamental" was somehow removed, I would still regard "profound" as more than enough.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:38 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

CasperVector wrote:
In order to assess your comment on clarity and intellectual honesty of these publications, I also need to listen from historians/philosophers/political scientists that research Marxism and are in support of it.

CasperVector ... and did I not say: "were it I providing that education I would insist you first read the source material" in response to my lack of "thoughtful" commentary, and was that not the reason I'd provided the above? Further, should that "need" not be the ground on which to claim to be "very Marxist" in your charge of practicality, or lack thereof?

CasperVector wrote:
But this is moot, as the disagreements between us focus on whether your pursuit is practical, and not on the comparison of "impractical" to "meaningless", which you still do not seem to object to.

It is only moot to the extent that you believe you can draw conclusions from arguments that I've never made ... hence the charge of dishonesty. By virtue of the fact that you consider your argument to be based entirely on practical considerations, you think this somehow situates any critique as needing to present you with something to replace that argument, and if not, that critique is mired in "impracticality/meaninglessness". That is a strawman argument, because what any such argument is about is the substantive truth of a claim, not the applicability of that truth to some action or other. Let's say Socrates discourses on "the good", you would ask "is butter good?", and think that Socrates need draw up a list of good/bad dairy products or otherwise fall foul of impracticality. As I said, I'm a philosopher, it's a very specific kind of discourse, if I voice some kind of epistemic, ethical, or socio-political, argument then it's not to inform you as to how you spread it on your bread, I'm focused entirely on the meaning, truth, validity, problem, etc, of that argument. Now, what have I to say about "practical" matters, well, as I've stated, I'm not in the business of providing guides for how people should live their lives, I'm only in the business of explicating what meaning, truths, etc, can be derived from their behaviour, and their explanations for that behaviour, but for myself I consider that my own action follow what meaning, truth, etc, I've ascertained from that study ... however, I consider the two things separate, because in practice we are bound by empirical considerations, whereas in thought we bound by a commitment to truth, argumentation, etc. Spinoza has the following to say on that question:

Spinoza., Letter to Hugo Boxel wrote:
In practical life we are compelled to follow what is most probable; in speculative thought we are compelled to follow truth. A man would perish of hunger and thirst, if he refused to eat or drink, 'till he had obtained positive proof that food and drink would be good for him. But in philosophic reflection this is not so. On the contrary, we must take care not to admit as true anything, which is only probable. For when one falsity has been let in, infinite others follow.

... I'd refine that somewhat and say that any conclusions reached are in fact "only probable" (so I don't take Spinoza's claim that such things could be certain seriously ... though, its debatable whether he would also), however, the substantive part of the argument WRT practical life, and the purpose of intellectual reflection, I take to be correct.

khayyam wrote:
I got that you were referring to Marx's absurd statement WRT "philosophers", but I didn't think that worth dignifying. Instead I focus on your ad hominum, where I become that "impractical" specimen to your robust pragmatism ... but, no, and so I called it, and how "quite Marxist", and intellectually dishonest, such a strawman argument is.

CasperVector wrote:
I focus on what one pursues, but feel perfectly fine if you would like to attach your personality to your pursuit.

No, it's you who that attached that to me, and you've been working on it since I was placed in the extra-ordinary role of justifying my lack of practical applicability. Now your exhibiting further dishonesty, because your "focus [on] persuit" is little more than a smoke screen allowing you to pretend that what this is all about doesn't turn on argumentation.

CasperVector wrote:
So, is your pursuit impractical, or not, given that you have indicated twice that you do not have a practical way to it?

I alluded to what that "practical way" would be. As I stated when this was first brought before me, the problems we face as a species are huge, and if you want to make such an arrangement viable then the entire socio-political field needs to be addressed ... there are no quick fixes in the form of a licence, or what-have-you, that will solve the problem of "big business", justice, etc, without addressing those fundamental socio-politcal arrangements. Your focus on a technical solution is no solution at all (except that you'll provide yourself with the interim comfort of thinking you're working toward that solution ... somehow). Yes, that's bad news for those who would sell you good news ... at the cost of your soul ... but I'm not in that business!

khayyam wrote:
No, that wasn't the focus I'd given: "technical advocation about technical problems", as I've argued, overlooks entirely the political nature of the problem such "freedom" is claiming to address. I can't keep restating my argument on that point.

CasperVector wrote:
However, the problem is now about convenience, and not about what you call "freedom".

Because you've changed the terms of reference does not mean I will necessarily follow suit ... but ok, when your "convenience" is swept aside by the liberty afforded redhat via the licence you conveniently advocate, then perhaps we can approach this discussion with a mind to the terms involved, hopefully you'll be less inclined to see those terms as indicating nothing in and of themselves.

khayyam wrote:
Oh, so it "antedates" the physical/natural requirement for bodies to receive material inputs in order to generate outputs? I don't know what kind of "nature" you're referring to but your argument is squarely in the realm of metaphysics.

CasperVector wrote:
No. However, speaking about their effects on engineering quality, economic conditions are much less fundamental (what "antedate" implied) and much less profound (as Hoare summarised) than complexity.

Well, if "no" then the argument made subsequently with regard to "how redhat acquired control" must therefore be something other than "by unnecessary complexity" ... but I don't expect you to make that connection, because quite frankly you're all over the place on this one.

CasperVector wrote:
And even if "fundamental" was somehow removed, I would still regard "profound" as more than enough.

Actually, no, I'm quite aware of the epistemic distinction you tried to make re nature and social constructs such as economics, but this simply doesn't fly as this "fundamental" constituent your trying to manifest is entirely inapplicable for such material inputs (unless your prepared to deny the basic concepts of physics, causality, etc).

Anyhow, I think others are probably bored with our discussion here, so we should probably wind down for their sake.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:39 am    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... and did I not say: "were it I providing that education I would insist you first read the source material" in response to my lack of "thoughtful" commentary, and was that not the reason I'd provided the above? Further, should that "need" not be the ground on which to claim to be "very Marxist" in your charge of practicality, or lack thereof?

I said "debatable"; the debate between you and me wrt Marxism is by nature unequal, so I need to form at least a de facto debate.
In order to be more or less unbiased, the amount of source material (plus its background material, recursively) for me to read would be overwhelming, so I do not find it unreasonable to resort to the approach above.

khayyam wrote:
Because you've changed the terms of reference does not mean I will necessarily follow suit ... but ok, when your "convenience" is swept aside by the liberty afforded redhat via the licence you conveniently advocate, then perhaps we can approach this discussion with a mind to the terms involved, hopefully you'll be less inclined to see those terms as indicating nothing in and of themselves.

Admittedly, the convenience of open source is exploited by RedHat; but the stated goal of open source itself is achieved, regardless. As I noted, "there do exist many useful FOSS projects; free bloat-malware is truly a very small minority".

khayyam wrote:
Well, if "no" then the argument made subsequently with regard to "how redhat acquired control" must therefore be something other than "by unnecessary complexity" ... but I don't expect you to make that connection, because quite frankly you're all over the place on this one.

The material inputs manifested themselves, in what appeared in computer code, as unnecessary complexity, which has to be reversed by simplicity of the code. This still seems perfectly compatible to what I said.

khayyam wrote:
Actually, no, I'm quite aware of the epistemic distinction you tried to make re nature and social constructs such as economics, but this simply doesn't fly as this "fundamental" constituent your trying to manifest is entirely inapplicable for such material inputs (unless your prepared to deny the basic concepts of physics, causality, etc).

Whatever; as you insist on it and I do not want to discuss epistemological issues, from now on I avoid the part about "fundamental". I still regard "profound" as more than enough, which you apparently did not comment on.

khayyam wrote:
I alluded to what that "practical way" would be. As I stated when this was first brought before me, the problems we face as a species are huge, and if you want to make such an arrangement viable then the entire socio-political field needs to be addressed ... there are no quick fixes in the form of a licence, or what-have-you, that will solve the problem of "big business", justice, etc, without addressing those fundamental socio-politcal arrangements. Your focus on a technical solution is no solution at all (except that you'll provide yourself with the interim comfort of thinking you're working toward that solution ... somehow). Yes, that's bad news for those who would sell you good news ... at the cost of your soul ... but I'm not in that business!

OK, so you considered "understand the field of operations, and how it functions, divest ourselves of our illusions/errors, and instate political and juridical constructs" as the practical way, which I expect you to consider them as.
Because you are a political scientist-philosopher, and you are in a position to educate people about them; although whether they accept is another question that would take another tens of posts, which I decide to avoid.
But what you said is completely impractical to me, as a programmer, because the "understand"/"divest" parts do not form practice, and the "instate" part is a part on which my practice have effectively zero impact whatsoever.
I realise that the "understand"/"divest" parts might affect how I advocate for software minimalism, but as I intend to focus on the technical aspects (as noted above), I do not see a strong relation between them.

khayyam wrote:
It is only moot to the extent that you believe you can draw conclusions from arguments that I've never made ... hence the charge of dishonesty. By virtue of the fact that you consider your argument to be based entirely on practical considerations, you think this somehow situates any critique as needing to present you with something to replace that argument, and if not, that critique is mired in "impracticality/meaninglessness". That is a strawman argument, because what any such argument is about is the substantive truth of a claim, not the applicability of that truth to some action or other.

I do not quite question the veracity of the statement about what we should do; however, this veracity does not seem very related to the advocation for software minimalism, as shown above.

khayyam wrote:
No, it's you who that attached that to me, and you've been working on it since I was placed in the extra-ordinary role of justifying my lack of practical applicability. Now your exhibiting further dishonesty, because your "focus [on] persuit" is little more than a smoke screen allowing you to pretend that what this is all about doesn't turn on argumentation.

Yes, you did attach them on yourself. As stated above, I am totally fine with you political scientist-philosopher considering what you said the practical way, but it is impractical to me as a programmer.
I would have felt perfectly fine (more than how I feel now), had you explicitly indicated, once in the two times, that you do consider them the practical way.

khayyam wrote:
Anyhow, I think others are probably bored with our discussion here, so we should probably wind down for their sake.

I agree.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:53 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... and did I not say: "were it I providing that education I would insist you first read the source material" in response to my lack of "thoughtful" commentary, and was that not the reason I'd provided the above? Further, should that "need" not be the ground on which to claim to be "very Marxist" in your charge of practicality, or lack thereof?

CasperVector wrote:
I said "debatable"; the debate between you and me wrt Marxism is by nature unequal, so I need to form at least a de facto debate.

CasperVector ... I see, you're having a debate. OK, so you question the veracity, or "thoughtful[ness]", of my statement that you exhibit the "very Marxist [...], lack of clarity, and intellectual dishonesty" your prior "impractical/meaningless" argument exudes, you then roll out the "professors [...] more thoughtful comments" so that I assume the role of educator. I then inform you of what that education entails and suggest you read the material in question if you want to have ground on which to discuss it, I also provide you with my reading supporting that assessment of Marx/Marxism, to which you reply that this wasn't necessarily indicative of Marxism, and that you "do not consider it intellectually honest to base the criticism of some person's doctrine [...] in one or two early publications", as if to say, it's not I who's intellectually dishonest, it's you. I provide a counter argument showing I know the subject, and that the charge of intellectual dishonesty, is, well, intellectually dishonest. You reply that in "order [for you] to assess [the] comment on the clarity and intellectual honesty of these publications, [you] also need to listen from historians/philosophers/political scientists", to which I can only ask: what sort of argument, or debate, are you having here, and in what kind of merry dance are you hoping to lead me? Am I in a debate with those historians/philosophers/political scientists you've yet to read, and if so why, and where are you in all this? All that said, it doesn't matter if you've read Marx, or not, because the subject is whether you're argument is clear, honest, etc ... that was the intent behind the comparison. So, please don't pretend there is some debate going on here, for that to happen there is the prerequisite for 1). knowing the subject matter of that debate, and 2). treating that subject in a manner indicative of honesty toward/with the argumentation given.

CasperVector wrote:
In order to be more or less unbiased, the amount of source material (plus its background material, recursively) for me to read would be overwhelming, so I do not find it unreasonable to resort to the approach above.

So, in the absence of knowledge ... lead a merry dance.

khayyam wrote:
Because you've changed the terms of reference does not mean I will necessarily follow suit ... but ok, when your "convenience" is swept aside by the liberty afforded redhat via the licence you conveniently advocate, then perhaps we can approach this discussion with a mind to the terms involved, hopefully you'll be less inclined to see those terms as indicating nothing in and of themselves.

CasperVector wrote:
Admittedly, the convenience of open source is exploited by RedHat; but the stated goal of open source itself is achieved, regardless. As I noted, "there do exist many useful FOSS projects; free bloat-malware is truly a very small minority".

No, they, redhat, are not exploiting it's "convenience".

khayyam wrote:
Well, if "no" then the argument made subsequently with regard to "how redhat acquired control" must therefore be something other than "by unnecessary complexity" ... but I don't expect you to make that connection, because quite frankly you're all over the place on this one.

CasperVector wrote:
The material inputs manifested themselves, in what appeared in computer code, as unnecessary complexity, which has to be reversed by simplicity of the code. This still seems perfectly compatible to what I said.

No, you're off on some tangent, the question was "how did redhat acquire technical control", you've stated by means of "unnecessary complexity", so again, how did redhat materialise that "unnecessary complexity"? Were they "lucky" in physics, and causality, or were there material inputs accrued to them by virtue of their being able to extract surplus value from free labour?

khayyam wrote:
Actually, no, I'm quite aware of the epistemic distinction you tried to make re nature and social constructs such as economics, but this simply doesn't fly as this "fundamental" constituent your trying to manifest is entirely inapplicable for such material inputs (unless your prepared to deny the basic concepts of physics, causality, etc).

CasperVector wrote:
Whatever; as you insist on it and I do not want to discuss epistemological issues, from now on I avoid the part about "fundamental". I still regard "profound" as more than enough, which you apparently did not comment on.

Wait, you don't want to discuss it, yet you introduced it as an argument? Did you not state that "natural principles are much more fundamental and much more profound than social principles"? Sorry, is there someone there providing an argument against the one I'd made, or not? As for "profound", that is not an argument, it's a value judgement.

khayyam wrote:
I alluded to what that "practical way" would be. As I stated when this was first brought before me, the problems we face as a species are huge, and if you want to make such an arrangement viable then the entire socio-political field needs to be addressed ... there are no quick fixes in the form of a licence, or what-have-you, that will solve the problem of "big business", justice, etc, without addressing those fundamental socio-politcal arrangements. Your focus on a technical solution is no solution at all (except that you'll provide yourself with the interim comfort of thinking you're working toward that solution ... somehow). Yes, that's bad news for those who would sell you good news ... at the cost of your soul ... but I'm not in that business!

CasperVector wrote:
OK, so you considered "understand the field of operations, and how it functions, divest ourselves of our illusions/errors, and instate political and juridical constructs" as the practical way, which I expect you to consider them as.

No, those are 'general' considerations on the problem (and by general, I mean, in the same sense "general theory" might be applied), they are not a form of practice, or a guide to achieving certain goals. Much the same as the theory of gravity doesn't speak about any given object, or how that object might produce dramatic effect in an action movie, I'm not attempting to give shape to that object, or propel it off a cliff ... it's not list of good/bad dairy products.

CasperVector wrote:
Because you are a political scientist-philosopher, and you are in a position to educate people about them; although whether they accept is another question that would take another tens of posts, which I decide to avoid.

Normally when you start a statement with "because x" it culminates in a conclusion, but rather than that you wind your merry way through a series of thoughts. What will he do next? ... accept/not accept ... avoid ... juggle balls? The suspense ...

CasperVector wrote:
But what you said is completely impractical to me, as a programmer, because the "understand"/"divest" parts do not form practice, and the "instate" part is a part on which my practice have effectively zero impact whatsoever.

... and what makes you think I'm speaking to you as a programmer? Have I not repeatedly stated "I'm a philosopher", and gone to lengths to explain what that discipline involves? What you don't seem to understand is that by presenting arguments you're implicated in that discipline ... whether it registers or not. The question is ... no lets be opaque and call it a mystery ... the mystery is, how does anyone get along without it, those words you're typing, do you know what they mean, would you place your trust in them were they a rope? How did you know in which order to place them, and where in that deep fundament to they come from? Have you every tasted a fnodleknip sandwich?

CasperVector wrote:
I realise that the "understand"/"divest" parts might affect how I advocate for software minimalism, but as I intend to focus on the technical aspects (as noted above), I do not see a strong relation between them.

I don't think you understand my argument at all. Were this a class and I was responsible for providing you a grade, I would take you to my office and explain that unless you put in greater effort you're going to fail ... but it's not, so having no such responsibility I'll appeal to the one thing that you should consider above all else, and that is your soul. So friend, take care, you may not see it, but your soul is at stake with every turn of your mind, every expression of your thought, and every interaction with others. If you doubt this then ask yourself, avoiding the tautology, what sort of ethical relationship do I have with myself?

khayyam wrote:
It is only moot to the extent that you believe you can draw conclusions from arguments that I've never made ... hence the charge of dishonesty. By virtue of the fact that you consider your argument to be based entirely on practical considerations, you think this somehow situates any critique as needing to present you with something to replace that argument, and if not, that critique is mired in "impracticality/meaninglessness". That is a strawman argument, because what any such argument is about is the substantive truth of a claim, not the applicability of that truth to some action or other.

CasperVector wrote:
I do not quite question the veracity of the statement about what we should do; however, this veracity does not seem very related to the advocation for software minimalism, as shown above.

It has everything to do with it, unless your entirely driven by random impulse.

khayyam wrote:
No, it's you who that attached that to me, and you've been working on it since I was placed in the extra-ordinary role of justifying my lack of practical applicability. Now your exhibiting further dishonesty, because your "focus [on] persuit" is little more than a smoke screen allowing you to pretend that what this is all about doesn't turn on argumentation.

CasperVector wrote:
Yes, you did attach them on yourself. As stated above, I am totally fine with you political scientist-philosopher considering what you said the practical way, but it is impractical to me as a programmer. I would have felt perfectly fine (more than how I feel now), had you explicitly indicated, once in the two times, that you do consider them the practical way.

No, I did not. There is no getting around your argument(s) so far stated, and it wasn't I who made them. Now you're attempting a smoke screen in the form of pretending those arguments don't even relate to you, as you're "focus[ed on] pursuit", and concerned entirely with the practicalities of the programmer. If that is the case (which of course it's not) then you're not free, or capable even, to make such arguments ... you're like someone attempting to deny "reason" ... "because x,y,z".

khayyam wrote:
Anyhow, I think others are probably bored with our discussion here, so we should probably wind down for their sake.

CasperVector wrote:
I agree.

In which case it's imperative to accept where we are right now, and perhaps pause to think what you can take from it, as otherwise without some acknowledgement of what that status is, there is little chance we can lay it to rest. So, perhaps, if you want to pursue this further, we can take it up in PM.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:28 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
In which case it's imperative to accept where we are right now, and perhaps pause to think what you can take from it, as otherwise without some acknowledgement of what that status is, there is little chance we can lay it to rest. So, perhaps, if you want to pursue this further, we can take it up in PM.
No, I did not. There is no getting around your argument(s) so far stated, and it wasn't I who made them. Now you're attempting a smoke screen in the form of pretending those arguments don't even relate to you, as you're "focus[ed on] pursuit", and concerned entirely with the practicalities of the programmer. If that is the case (which of course it's not) then you're not free, or capable even, to make such arguments ... you're like someone attempting to deny "reason" ... "because x,y,z".

I intend to reach an agreement on what we disagree (which is what I usually pursue in debates, and is usually a difference in world view or personal values, as long as it can be justified by diversity), and tried more than just a few times in this thread.
And I am actually "bored with our discussion" too, as you might be able to guess from my attitude on technical vs political issues, so let me explicitly note that I do not want to continue it in PM.
I made quite a lot of arguments in this thread, and a large fraction of them are weak (or even flawed), admittedly. And I do not think this is a shame, since I am indeed a layman to true philosophy and political science.
I regard these weak arguments as an integral part of the learning process (which I wholeheartedly thank you for), and believe that as long as one sufficiently strong line of reasoning is made and not effectively refuted, my point is acceptable.
However, if you continued to focus on these weak arguments which my latest line of reasoning did not depend on, I would have to consider you as attempting "smoke screen" (which you accuse me of).
There is a proverb (so not a theorem, just a summary of common observations) from people around me, that roughly says "if you keep finding people of some bad characteristics, the fact might be that you yourself are of said characteristics instead".
I can swear (it is up to you to believe it or not) that I have truthfully and sincerely expressed myself. If you keep thinking I intentionally make intellectually dishonest arguments, then also keep in mind the proverb above; this is not an accusation, but a warning.

khayyam wrote:
[...] You reply that in "order [for you] to assess [the] comment on the clarity and intellectual honesty of these publications, [you] also need to listen from historians/philosophers/political scientists", to which I can only ask: what sort of argument, or debate, are you having here, and in what kind of merry dance are you hoping to lead me? Am I in a debate with those historians/philosophers/political scientists you've yet to read, and if so why, and where are you in all this? All that said, it doesn't matter if you've read Marx, or not, because the subject is whether you're argument is clear, honest, etc ... that was the intent behind the comparison.
So, please don't pretend there is some debate going on here, for that to happen there is the prerequisite for 1). knowing the subject matter of that debate, and 2). treating that subject in a manner indicative of honesty toward/with the argumentation given. So, in the absence of knowledge ... lead a merry dance.

I do have basic (probably dramatically below your standard) knowledge about the subject, but it is impractical for me to search the haystack of literatures for the needles of information necessary to evaluate your comments.
As long as the debate keeps focusing on, say, distortion, then I can verify the arguments from both parties by checking the material they pointed to. This approach is much more practical, and does not seem much less instructive.
My cascade of comments, which might seem to be increasingly big pretexts (which they are not) for my ignorance (which I admit once more), wrt your comments on Marxism, was actually a result of ad-hoc research by myself.
What if I tell the knowledgeable people in support of Marxism "someone says TPoP and THF lack clarity and intellectual honesty"? So I have to do a reasonable amount of homework before asking them, until the amount would become intractable.

khayyam wrote:
No, they, redhat, are not exploiting it's "convenience".
No, you're off on some tangent, the question was "how did redhat acquire technical control", you've stated by means of "unnecessary complexity", so again, how did redhat materialise that "unnecessary complexity"? Were they "lucky" in physics, and causality, or were there material inputs accrued to them by virtue of their being able to extract surplus value from free labour?
Wait, you don't want to discuss it, yet you introduced it as an argument? Did you not state that "natural principles are much more fundamental and much more profound than social principles"? Sorry, is there someone there providing an argument against the one I'd made, or not? As for "profound", that is not an argument, it's a value judgement.

Fine, my fault. So what? Does it affect "the stated goal of open source itself is achieved"?
In what way is "how did redhat acquire technical control" related to the practicality of my advocation for software minimalism?
"Profound" is an argument for said practicality, which I (in retrospect) have focused on from the beginning of this conversation.

khayyam wrote:
No, those are 'general' considerations on the problem (and by general, I mean, in the same sense "general theory" might be applied), they are not a form of practice, or a guide to achieving certain goals.
Normally when you start a statement with "because x" it culminates in a conclusion, but rather than that you wind your merry way through a series of thoughts. What will he do next? ... accept/not accept ... avoid ... juggle balls? The suspense ...
... and what makes you think I'm speaking to you as a programmer? Have I not repeatedly stated "I'm a philosopher", and gone to lengths to explain what that discipline involves? What you don't seem to understand is that by presenting arguments you're implicated in that discipline ... whether it registers or not. The question is ... no lets be opaque and call it a mystery ... the mystery is, how does anyone get along without it, those words you're typing, do you know what they mean, would you place your trust in them were they a rope? How did you know in which order to place them, and where in that deep fundament to they come from? Have you every tasted a fnodleknip sandwich?

OK, then I misunderstood you. So is "addressing those fundamental socio-politcal arrangements" your "practical way"? That is as (im)practical to me as what I thought to be your "practical way".
I intended the "because" to qualifiy "I expect you to consider [...] as [the practical way]". If you do think the line break (originally intended to make the paragraph good-looking on my screen) is wrong, I can avoid it in the future.
I believe that a theory needs to be turned into practice in order to be practical. To me, what I thought to be your "practical way" cannot be practiced. So I need to do something to actually change the situation, and hence technical advocation.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C


Last edited by CasperVector on Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:33 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5122
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fscking hell, man.

I was quite happy to leave you two having a discussion on matters philosophical and sociopolitical, but my reading of it is that Casper is not in fact thinking about the words put to him, merely poking khayyam to see how long he will ramble.

Sorry if that's not how you two see it, and I really have a lot of time for Casper on technical matters.

But geeks are absolutely useless at sociopolitics, in general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
I was quite happy to leave you two having a discussion on matters philosophical and sociopolitical, but my reading of it is that Casper is not in fact thinking about the words put to him, merely poking khayyam to see how long he will ramble.

Let me summarise the roughly 30-post conversation from my perspective:
* I began with the advocation for software elegance/minimalism, but mixed it with too much politics (shown in my first post replied by khayyam, not the one you quoted).
* khayyam strongly argued that freedom is by nature a socio-political issue; I still do not agree with him on details here and there, but important is that I realised that I am very bad at socio-political issues.
* I intentionally switched to advocation for the technical convenience of minimalism, just like from "software freedom" to "open source", in order to prevent my socio-political ignorance from affecting the advocation.
* khayyam kept talking about freedom, and expressed the opinion that I was evading the argumentation while pretending I won it, and that I was therefore intellectually dishonest.
* However, I just have been tired of socio-political issues from the beginning, and want to avoid them whenever reasonable: yes, I am very ignorant on these issues, so let me focus on techical issues instead, OK?
One final comment after such painful and frustrating discussions (despite what I did learn from their subjects): I am not LP, KS et al, and please assume goodwill of me; we each could have saved many hours, had this happened.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:40 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

CasperVector ... looks like we've reached a stage of recapitulation:

CasperVector wrote:
I intend to reach an agreement on what we disagree (which is what I usually pursue in debates, and is usually a difference in world view or personal values, as long as it can be justified by diversity), and tried more than just a few times in this thread.

... but that is the root of the problem, imagine the following exchange (I won't all it a "debate") between a geometrist (B) and someone unfamiliar with that branch of mathematics (A):

A. A triangle is like a square.
B. No, they are both geometric figures, but a triangle is nothing like a square.
A. For my purposes a triangle is like a square, and I'm not concerned about the finer details.
B. Well, you should be concerned ... what does "like" mean in this case?
A. The meaning isn't important for me, what's important is that the similarity is sufficient for my purpose.
B. But that is not a valid argument, a triangle and a square, though both geometric figures, don't share the same features, and so are unalike (see: Euclid).
A. That point doesn't concern me, I'm focused on their application.
B. If that is the case, then what sort of discussion are we having?
A. It's a debate, my intent is to reach an agreement on what we disagree.
... etc, etc.

In your case you similarly refuse to "refer to the domain in which that term operates", and think that by shifting the terms (or frame of reference) that the subject, and I, will follow ... and that in the course of this we will have discovered the source of our disagreement [sic]. An example of this would be your shift subsequent of "all of which seem to be technical considerations, I'm concerned entirely with the social, political, and juridical, questions involved", which on that same question you think we should "agree to disagree", as for you such questions turn on whether they are "technical[ly] meaningful". But like the geometrist above I have to insist that "freedom, as a concept, is entirely within the realm of politics, so any reference to technical merit, is entirely outside of the terms of reference". Had you said "you're right, but the question of efficiency, etc, etc, concern me as a programmer, as does the practical problem of how best to distribute that code", we could have skipped passed what followed without any fuss.

... but it gets worse ... you next try to counter the entire basis for these terms of reference, because somehow the "actionable" qualification isn't "practical", and further, that in order for my critique to be valid I need provide a "practical proposal". When I refuse that requirement/demand I'm prompted with your "quite Marxist" consideration of "impractical [being] as severe as meaningless". Now, in retrospect, can you see why I would label this "intellectually dishonest"? ... and can you see why I would object to you subsequently accusing me of the same in regard to my having only cited two early works? ... and can you see how this all assumes the contours of a merry dance?

CasperVector wrote:
I made quite a lot of arguments in this thread, and a large fraction of them are weak (or even flawed), admittedly. And I do not think this is a shame, since I am indeed a layman to true philosophy and political science.

... and that is extactly why I try to make you conscious of that shame, and why I refer you to your soul. Without this reflection on error, and care given to argumentation and what we claim to know, then you're not going to make any headway in that subject. I was perhaps lucky, I was extraordinarily doubtful, but having spent a fair amount of time in academia, and seen no end of students willing to argue the toss on subject they are only vaguely familiar, I can generally spot it a mile off.

CasperVector wrote:
I regard these weak arguments as an integral part of the learning process (which I wholeheartedly thank you for), and believe that as long as one sufficiently strong argument can be made and is not effectively refuted, my point is acceptable.

Well, I take weak arguments as a sign of unstable belief, and while these can be turned to an advantage (as doubt, and error, give us reason to seek more stable beliefs) we are prone to dishonesty about ourselves, our beliefs, etc, and so can lose our soul to the bargain ... including that of self-improvement. That is why the philosophers watchword is caute (caution) and not utquomque (whatever).

CasperVector wrote:
However, if you continued to focus on these weak arguments which my latest line of reasoning did not depend on, I would have to consider you as attempting "smoke screen" (which you accuse me of).

No, I've been fairy careful to address every point ... but have my mind on the argument as a whole. Why you see that as exhibiting a certain focus is because you're labouring under the impression that you can shift to another discussion and have me follow ... as though there were enough continuity in place to make that shift without hitting the difficulties involved. So, the smoke screen I refer to is the one offered by your falling back on the position that you have more practical concerns (and more practical concerns than I), so ignoring the fact that any argument you make is an argument, and exists entirely in that domain. Were I to say, "for practical purposes, a triangle is like a square", and then insist that what I'm discussing are those practical purposes, I would be throwing up a smoke screen.

CasperVector wrote:
There is a proverb (so not a theorem, just a summary of common observations) from people around me, that roughly says "if you keep finding people of some bad characteristics, the fact might be that you yourself are of said characteristics instead".

I would take that proverb as no more than a platitude ... one that no amount of argument would assuage. As for the truth of it, well, I'll leave that to someone who knows my motivations better then I.

CasperVector wrote:
I can swear (it is up to you to believe it or not) that I have truthfully and sincerely expressed myself. If you keep thinking I intentionally make intellectually dishonest arguments, then also keep in mind the proverb above; this is not an accusation, but a warning.

No, that call of intellectual dishonesty wasn't a value judgement, it was based on the substance of your argument, the context in which it was given, etc, etc. Do you think dishonesty requires awareness of that dishonesty, can "2+2=5" ever be an honest assessment, or would that belief require that someone were dishonest about their understanding of mathematics? Further, you've yet to address your accusation that I too exhibit such dishonesty ...even though, as you admit, you're not equipped to make that judgement ... so where does this leave your warning?

CasperVector wrote:
I do have basic (probably dramatically below your standard) knowledge about the subject, but it is impractical for me to search the haystack of literatures for the needles of information necessary to evaluate your comments.

Exactly, so in such circumstances wouldn't it be wise to either exhibit caution, or reason that I might be a trustworthy source for such knowledge?

CasperVector wrote:
As long as the debate keeps focusing on, say, distortion, then I can verify the arguments from both parties by checking the material they pointed to. This approach is much more practical, and does not seem much less instructive.

Again, you're forgetting that I'm having a discussion, or debate, with you, so it's your arguments that I'm addressing not those of other parties. I didn't sign up to be your educator, or sounding board, I'm here purely as an interlocutor, addressing your arguments.

CasperVector wrote:
What if I tell the knowledgeable people in support of Marxism "someone says TPoP and THF lack clarity and intellectual honesty"? So I have to do a reasonable amount of homework before asking them, until the amount would become intractable.

That would be an honest report of what I'd initially said, but what purpose does the above serve, are you going to do that homework or not, and if yes, then why is it automatically intractable? The question you need to ask yourself is: do I intend asking Marxists such questions, and if so, what might I need to do to make the asking more than purely perfunctory act.

khayyam wrote:
No, they, redhat, are not exploiting it's "convenience"
[...] you're off on some tangent, the question was "how did redhat acquire technical control", you've stated by means of "unnecessary complexity", so again, how did redhat materialise that "unnecessary complexity"? Were they "lucky" in physics, and causality, or were there material inputs accrued to them by virtue of their being able to extract surplus value from free labour?
[...] Wait, you don't want to discuss it, yet you introduced it as an argument? Did you not state that "natural principles are much more fundamental and much more profound than social principles"? Sorry, is there someone there providing an argument against the one I'd made, or not?

CasperVector wrote:
Fine, my fault. So what? Does it affect "the stated goal of open source itself is achieved"? In what way is "how did redhat acquire technical control" related to the practicality of my advocation for software minimalism?

You seem to be doing a lot of streamlining here ... how does it matter? Well, it matters for the arguments given, and I can be forgiven for addressing those as they are presented. The fact you want to avoid having done so, and present a summation, is purely the outcome of your having conflated these relatively distinct terms from the outset ... and are now left with the problem of how to disentangle them ... and so present your desire for minimalism as an unrelated, and separate, concern.

CasperVector wrote:
I believe that a theory needs to be turned into practice in order to be practical. To me, what I thought to be your "practical way" cannot be practiced. So I need to do something to actually change the situation, and hence technical advocation.

You're mistaken, on a number of levels. It's an easy mistake to make, because like other descriptive pairings (like, say, up/down) you can fool yourself into thinking you're travelling "up" into space, when actually you're not. When I consider "theory", I think only in terms of what the theory describes, its generality, etc, etc, and when I learned to stand, and then walk, I had absolutely no idea about the theory of gravity, and yet, there I was "practice, practice, practice". Since that time, and having been presented with that theory, it hasn't changed my gait one iota, or my ability to trip and fall over life's obstacles ... what a useless, and impractical, theory that turned out to be ... though it still might prove useful for uping my bod to the space, wait a minute, am I not already space, whatabout that vast dimention called mind, ahh, uhhh, hmmmm. Now, as a good Cartesian I should ask you how those two domains are conjoined, is there an inter-spacial pineal gland mediating between them, and how might I take these meagre thoughts and manifest them in the physical plain ... oh, so many questions, without practical applicability.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2577
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hesitate to join in, but:
[ quote]
I believe that a theory needs to be turned into practice in order to be practical. To me, what I thought to be your "practical way" cannot be practiced. So I need to do something to actually change the situation, and hence technical advocation. [/quote]
I think you mean "hypothesis" rather than "theory". A hypothesis is a conjecture really just an educated guess. A theory is a developed set of tools based on a hypothesis. A theory, being a set of tools, is practical. Like "theory of the atom" "generalized Kaluza theory" "string theory" "the theory of relativity". Layman say these are just guesses and everyone's guess is as good as anothers. Bith statements are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
... but it gets worse ... you next try to counter the entire basis for these terms of reference, because somehow the "actionable" qualification isn't "practical", and further, that in order for my critique to be valid I need provide a "practical proposal". When I refuse that requirement/demand I'm prompted with your "quite Marxist" consideration of "impractical [being] as severe as meaningless". Now, in retrospect, can you see why I would label this "intellectually dishonest"? ... and can you see why I would object to you subsequently accusing me of the same in regard to my having only cited two early works? ... and can you see how this all assumes the contours of a merry dance?

I think the phase transition occured when the words "convenience" and "practical" first occured in our conversation; the latter also occured once wrt S-expressions, but that occurence antedates this conversation.
I wished the "convenience"-related discussion to be as purely technical as possible, but after your question about socio-political factors in "technical control", I mixed "the practicality of a theory" (perhaps ill-defined) into the discussion.
On a lower level, I mistook you as objecting to the advocation of minimalism, and hence the misguided comparison between "the practicality of a theory" and the practicality of my advocation. I think I also should be sorry for this.
This mistake existed since the beginning of this discussion, but was not triggered until I attempted to ask "is my technical advocation practical?" and you took me as attempting "smoke screen".

khayyam wrote:
That would be an honest report of what I'd initially said, but what purpose does the above serve, are you going to do that homework or not, and if yes, then why is it automatically intractable? The question you need to ask yourself is: do I intend asking Marxists such questions, and if so, what might I need to do to make the asking more than purely perfunctory act.

I will seriously consider these suggestions, and try not to be perfunctory; surely not "purely perfunctory", but perhaps still quite cursory as I do have jobs to to.

khayyam wrote:
No, that call of intellectual dishonesty wasn't a value judgement, it was based on the substance of your argument, the context in which it was given, etc, etc.

Then I misunderstood your terminology. I am glad it wasn't a value judgement, and am therefore sorry for the incorrectly issued warning.

khayyam wrote:
Had you said "you're right, but the question of efficiency, etc, etc, concern me as a programmer, as does the practical problem of how best to distribute that code", we could have skipped passed what followed without any fuss.

I really wish you had said "I am not questioning that your technical advocation is practical". I estimate that could have at least halved the fuss.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C


Last edited by CasperVector on Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945 wrote:
I hesitate to join in, but:

Tony0945 ... np

CasterVector wrote:
I believe that a theory needs to be turned into practice in order to be practical.[...]

Tony0945 wrote:
I think you mean "hypothesis" rather than "theory". [...]

If you replaced "theory" with "hypothesis" it will still result in a tautology:

"I believe" ... "a theory/hypothesis" ... "needs" ... "practice in order to be practical" ... the qualifier for the proposition "needs" are both the same: "practice/practical". So you can read it as saying: "I believe" ... "a theory/hypothesis" ... "needs" ... "practice" ... which is fine as a statement, but not as an argument.

best ... & welcome ;) ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CasperVector wrote:
Let me summarise the roughly 30-post conversation from my perspective:
* I began with the advocation for software elegance/minimalism, but mixed it with too much politics (shown in my first post replied by khayyam, not the one you quoted).
* khayyam strongly argued that freedom is by nature a socio-political issue; I still do not agree with him on details here and there, but important is that I realised that I am very bad at socio-political issues.
* I intentionally switched to advocation for the technical convenience of minimalism, just like from "software freedom" to "open source", in order to prevent my socio-political ignorance from affecting the advocation.
* khayyam kept talking about freedom, and expressed the opinion that I was evading the argumentation while pretending I won it, and that I was therefore intellectually dishonest.
* However, I just have been tired of socio-political issues from the beginning, and want to avoid them whenever reasonable: yes, I am very ignorant on these issues, so let me focus on techical issues instead, OK?
One final comment after such painful and frustrating discussions (despite what I did learn from their subjects): I am not LP, KS et al, and please assume goodwill of me; we each could have saved many hours, had this happened.

Revised abstract:
1. I began with the advocation for software elegance/minimalism, but mixed it with too much politics (shown in my first post replied by khayyam, not the one steveL first quoted).
2a. khayyam strongly argued that freedom is by nature a socio-political issue; I still do not agree with him on details here and there, but important is that I realised that I am very bad at socio-political issues.
2b. Since the first reply by khayyam, I mistook him as objecting, both techically and socio-politically, to my advocation for minimalism, and argued, of course in vain, about the comparison between his social-political pursuit and my technical pursuit.
3a. I intentionally switched to advocation for the technical convenience of minimalism, just like from "software freedom" to "open source", in order to prevent my socio-political ignorance from affecting the advocation.
3b. khayyam thought that I was evading the argumentation while subconsciously pretending I won it, and that I was therefore intellectually dishonest.
Revised commentary: had we both been more explicit in the wording, we would have avoided the displeasure; I really hope there is a research field/subfield about saving good-natured people from this kind of harmful implicity in debates.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:52 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

CasperVector wrote:
I think the phase transition occured when the words "convenience" and "practical" first occured in our conversation; the latter also occured once wrt S-expressions, but that occurence antedates this conversation.

CasperVector ... well, that "phase transition", as I see it, is the act of shifting the terms of reference from one domain into an entirely different domain. The question of "control by big companies" (which prompted my initial post) is prior to "transition", and is the subject I've insisted doggedly we're discussing. Perhaps my reason for asking you to explain "how redhat aquired technical control" will be clear now.

CasperVector wrote:
On a lower level, I mistook you as objecting to the advocation of minimalism, and hence the misguided comparison between "the practicality of a theory" and the practicality of my advocation. I think I also should be sorry for this.

np ... yes, that wasn't my objection ... I'm a minimalist myself ... but that minimalism is a question related entirely to design, techne, etc, and not politics.

khayyam wrote:
Had you said "you're right, but the question of efficiency, etc, etc, concern me as a programmer, as does the practical problem of how best to distribute that code", we could have skipped passed what followed without any fuss.

CasperVector wrote:
I really wish you had said "I am not questioning that your technical advocation is practical". I estimate that could have at least halved the fuss.

Had I done so what would have become of the substantive issue(s) involved? Let's say "2+2" was the problem, I could say "the answer is 4", but you would be none the wiser as to how I come to that conclusion. That's why I focus on the argumentation ... and chase that to ground.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:09 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
The question of "control by big companies" (which prompted my initial post) is prior to "transition", and is the subject I've insisted doggedly we're discussing. Perhaps my reason for asking you to explain "how redhat aquired technical control" will be clear now.

In the conversaion I realised that I can do effectively nothing to actually help resolve the socio-political issues which allowed redhat to aquire technical control. So I lost interest in the problem, hence the phase transition.

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... well, that "phase transition", as I see it, is the act of shifting the terms of reference from one domain into an entirely different domain.

After losing interest in said problem, I needed to focus on purely technical issues, at least those as purely technical as possible.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:54 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
The question of "control by big companies" (which prompted my initial post) is prior to "transition", and is the subject I've insisted doggedly we're discussing. Perhaps my reason for asking you to explain "how redhat aquired technical control" will be clear now.

CasperVector wrote:
In the conversaion I realised that I can do effectively nothing to actually help resolve the socio-political issues which allowed redhat to aquire technical control. So I lost interest in the problem, hence the phase transition.

CasperVector ... I would argue you can do something, you can be clear about what those socio-political issues involve, and how they relate to advocacy, your understanding, etc.

khayyam wrote:
[...] that "phase transition", as I see it, is the act of shifting the terms of reference from one domain into an entirely different domain.

CasperVector wrote:
After losing interest in said problem, I needed to focus on purely technical issues, at least those as purely technical as possible.

... and what do you think my reply to that loss of interest, and shift in focus, will be?

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:15 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... I would argue you can do something, you can be clear about what those socio-political issues involve, and how they relate to advocacy, your understanding, etc.

Surely, but I prioritise tasks based on how much they affect my actual behaviours and how much said effects benefits the world. In this case, I choose to reach a roughly self-consistent viewpoint on Marxism first.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6075
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:32 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... I would argue you can do something, you can be clear about what those socio-political issues involve, and how they relate to advocacy, your understanding, etc.

CasperVector wrote:
Surely, but I prioritise tasks based on how much they affect my actual behaviours and how much said affects benefits the world.

CasperVector ... that sounds very utilitarian, I might even say "practical", but it's not how you came to the beliefs you now hold. Someone, probably your mother, said: "that stove is hot, it will harm you if you touch it", and disbelieving/doubting that report, you touched the stove, discovered error, and corrected your belief ... and on it went, with other reports, and other interactions with your environment. You didn't schedule the reading of the bumper-book-of-reported-beliefs, you were deeply embedded in acquiring, validating, and acting on them.

CasperVector wrote:
In this case, I choose to reach a roughly self-consistent viewpoint on Marxism first.

I don't envy you the task, for me it's something of a trauma. That said, I'd tentatively recommend you read Jacques Rancière's 'The Philosopher and His Poor' (as a circumvention ... beginning at the end) and familiarise yourself with much of the political discourse prior to Marx. I could offer a reading list if it'd be of any help.

steveL wrote:
if you are thinking about the socio-political, it is important to know exactly how the world really works, [...] The "economic" system we are forced to live under [...] is a complete and utter fraud.

... and, to draw those discussions together, that fraud involves the following typical misdirection: piss in in the water supply and then point to "additional technologies that might accelerate further remediation" (or, in other words, a technology fix) as the substantive consideration.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5122
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
... and, to draw those discussions together, that fraud involves the following typical misdirection
Every confidence trick, or fraud to use the legal term, rests on misdirection interleaved with truism and rhetoric.

Getting caught up in specific misdirection, is in fact to submit to the con, as ofc you denote with the use of the word "typical".

A conspiracy so large as to be overwhelming, becomes the establishment, and plus ca change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CasperVector
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:28 pm    Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al. Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
CasperVector ... that sounds very utilitarian, I might even say "practical", but it's not how you came to the beliefs you now hold.

I think "utilitarian" summarises my mentality really nicely. (And many thanks for not using words that are more derogatory...)

khayyam wrote:
I don't envy you the task, for me it's something of a trauma. That said, I'd tentatively recommend you read Jacques Rancière's 'The Philosopher and His Poor' (as a circumvention ... beginning at the end) and familiarise yourself with much of the political discourse prior to Marx. I could offer a reading list if it'd be of any help.

Thanks. I guess it would take a long time before I could be ready to read the Jacques Rancière book, so let me not request the reading list for now.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum