PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Hi Joseph,
> You are not on the recognized list of judges.
The judge is not me. It is yourself. I simply used your own arguments and
logic, and applied them back to you.
> You are willing to passively accept knowledge transferred via conversations,
> you have not demonstrated a willingness to take action beyound this email list
> to advance your knowledge to the point where you feel comfortable making a
> committed decision. You are not neutral, you are apathetic.
As I said many times before. I am willing to learn more. I do read various
articles, listen to other people who are more well informed, tune into TV
and radio programs discussing the issue. You do not know me personally, so
there is no real way for you to see or know my willingness. Yet you assert
that I am apathetic and unwilling (guilty until proven innocent). So, beyond
what I have conveyed to you, there is nothing more that I am capable of
doing to prove my willingness. That is why I asked you how this
"demonstration" can be accomplished. Since you insist on calling me
"apathetic", I ask you again, please demonstrate this to me, so I know what
you mean.
> I never stated the condition of my willingness and I pointed this out to you.
> The argument in question is whether you are neutral or apathetic and has
> nothing to do with my state.
As I said above, I am trying to show you that I am not apathetic, and am
willing, but it seems impossible to achieve this since you have some sort of
strict model for what demonstrating willingness is. This is why I am asking
you to do this yourself, so that I know, and possibly follow the example and
demonstrate my willingness back to you.
> Your attempt to turn the argument into a contrast of personal abilities
> demonstrates a desire to overpower.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if someone wins an
argument, or if someone can explain something, then that person is right,
and those who lose an argument, and those who cannot explain something is
wrong?
> Will to power allows Nietzsche to see
> self-transformation as a creative art form. We are speaking of your will to
> overpower and control some other person's transformation into a weak imitation
> of yourself.
Aside from stating or defending my own positions (just as everyone else did
in this discussion including yourself) what did I do that is different from
everyone else that makes my statements or opinions "overpower and control"?
> You are not making sense, "yes,run" was a description of your final action.
Are you saying that you meant to say, "Yes, you are running" ? If so, what
gave you the idea that I am running, or rushing towards the state you
describe? In English, when you use the verb by itself without the subject,
it is an imperative sentence, and it expresses commands.
> If you stop attacking me, perhaps we can return to the argument of neutrality.
All I did in my last post was to redirect your own criticisms back to you. I
applied your own argument and logic to your own statements. So, if you feel
that it was an attack on you, then it originated from you.
-Dyske
> You are not on the recognized list of judges.
The judge is not me. It is yourself. I simply used your own arguments and
logic, and applied them back to you.
> You are willing to passively accept knowledge transferred via conversations,
> you have not demonstrated a willingness to take action beyound this email list
> to advance your knowledge to the point where you feel comfortable making a
> committed decision. You are not neutral, you are apathetic.
As I said many times before. I am willing to learn more. I do read various
articles, listen to other people who are more well informed, tune into TV
and radio programs discussing the issue. You do not know me personally, so
there is no real way for you to see or know my willingness. Yet you assert
that I am apathetic and unwilling (guilty until proven innocent). So, beyond
what I have conveyed to you, there is nothing more that I am capable of
doing to prove my willingness. That is why I asked you how this
"demonstration" can be accomplished. Since you insist on calling me
"apathetic", I ask you again, please demonstrate this to me, so I know what
you mean.
> I never stated the condition of my willingness and I pointed this out to you.
> The argument in question is whether you are neutral or apathetic and has
> nothing to do with my state.
As I said above, I am trying to show you that I am not apathetic, and am
willing, but it seems impossible to achieve this since you have some sort of
strict model for what demonstrating willingness is. This is why I am asking
you to do this yourself, so that I know, and possibly follow the example and
demonstrate my willingness back to you.
> Your attempt to turn the argument into a contrast of personal abilities
> demonstrates a desire to overpower.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if someone wins an
argument, or if someone can explain something, then that person is right,
and those who lose an argument, and those who cannot explain something is
wrong?
> Will to power allows Nietzsche to see
> self-transformation as a creative art form. We are speaking of your will to
> overpower and control some other person's transformation into a weak imitation
> of yourself.
Aside from stating or defending my own positions (just as everyone else did
in this discussion including yourself) what did I do that is different from
everyone else that makes my statements or opinions "overpower and control"?
> You are not making sense, "yes,run" was a description of your final action.
Are you saying that you meant to say, "Yes, you are running" ? If so, what
gave you the idea that I am running, or rushing towards the state you
describe? In English, when you use the verb by itself without the subject,
it is an imperative sentence, and it expresses commands.
> If you stop attacking me, perhaps we can return to the argument of neutrality.
All I did in my last post was to redirect your own criticisms back to you. I
applied your own argument and logic to your own statements. So, if you feel
that it was an attack on you, then it originated from you.
-Dyske
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Hi Joseph,
> I never stated I was willing.
> I will ignore as it pleases me, or not. You are unconcerned about your
> opinions, yet are insistent upon their expression. The reason is to establish
> power.
> Yes, run.
All three statements make you guilty of your own criticisms. I stated that I
am willing to learn from anyone including yourself, though you did not feel
that I "proved" it. You are flat out admitting that you are unwilling. Or,
perhaps you are saying that you are neither willing or unwilling, i.e.,
neutral, the very state you also criticize.
"yet are insistent upon their expression" What about your own insistence?
Yes, I believe in Nietzsche's will-to-power. Those who protest the war,
those against it, or neutral; they all have it. Everyone is entitled to
their will-to-power. It is a social mechanism that works well as a whole,
and it is in the basis of democracy. To "dictate" is a different issue. To
dictate means to force someone against their will. I have no such power or
desire to dictate. If someone wants to listen to my opinions, then that is
great, if not, no problem.
"Yes, run." Here you express your wish for me to be in the state that you
describe. Though I do not know what this state is, I am willing to be
open-minded of the possibility of the state of my mind changing in the
future, as it did in the past. You criticize me for being insistent of my
opinion, and you even call it "murder". Yet you insist that I reach the
state you describe. How do you reconcile this?
-Dyske
> I never stated I was willing.
> I will ignore as it pleases me, or not. You are unconcerned about your
> opinions, yet are insistent upon their expression. The reason is to establish
> power.
> Yes, run.
All three statements make you guilty of your own criticisms. I stated that I
am willing to learn from anyone including yourself, though you did not feel
that I "proved" it. You are flat out admitting that you are unwilling. Or,
perhaps you are saying that you are neither willing or unwilling, i.e.,
neutral, the very state you also criticize.
"yet are insistent upon their expression" What about your own insistence?
Yes, I believe in Nietzsche's will-to-power. Those who protest the war,
those against it, or neutral; they all have it. Everyone is entitled to
their will-to-power. It is a social mechanism that works well as a whole,
and it is in the basis of democracy. To "dictate" is a different issue. To
dictate means to force someone against their will. I have no such power or
desire to dictate. If someone wants to listen to my opinions, then that is
great, if not, no problem.
"Yes, run." Here you express your wish for me to be in the state that you
describe. Though I do not know what this state is, I am willing to be
open-minded of the possibility of the state of my mind changing in the
future, as it did in the past. You criticize me for being insistent of my
opinion, and you even call it "murder". Yet you insist that I reach the
state you describe. How do you reconcile this?
-Dyske
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Joseph,
This isn't convincing me that you are willing to learn from me.
So, in your own words:
You fail to be willing.
OK, that's a bad joke.
> You have no truth or facts to teach, and dictating a state of mind is
> essentially murder.
I have no power or authority to dictate anyone's state of mind. What I say
are only my opinions. You take it or leave it. I have no interest in having
you believe in what I believe. If you feel that I have nothing to offer you,
then, by all means, ignore me.
> Your "insight" into the personal nature of "truth" is a
> stage many go through. It is a convenient excuse of the
> intelligent mind to justify the superiority of its opinion
> in the face of superior knowledge or conviction.
> There are stages past this.
Obviously I'm not there yet. So, you'll have to be patient with me, and
perhaps look me up 10 years from now.
-Dyske
This isn't convincing me that you are willing to learn from me.
So, in your own words:
You fail to be willing.
OK, that's a bad joke.
> You have no truth or facts to teach, and dictating a state of mind is
> essentially murder.
I have no power or authority to dictate anyone's state of mind. What I say
are only my opinions. You take it or leave it. I have no interest in having
you believe in what I believe. If you feel that I have nothing to offer you,
then, by all means, ignore me.
> Your "insight" into the personal nature of "truth" is a
> stage many go through. It is a convenient excuse of the
> intelligent mind to justify the superiority of its opinion
> in the face of superior knowledge or conviction.
> There are stages past this.
Obviously I'm not there yet. So, you'll have to be patient with me, and
perhaps look me up 10 years from now.
-Dyske
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...
Hi Michael,
I tell my friends that everything I say is either a gross generalization or
a Christo-size blanket statement. It is a joke but at the same time I mean
it. Whenever we use language, we must generalize. I use the word "chair" to
point to a particular chair in my room; that is a generalization. There is a
spectrum of chair-ness, and at some point it ceases to be chair and becomes
couch, stool, or bench. At what point it shifts is subjective. So, when you
use the word "chair", you are generalizing a certain area of chair-ness and
claiming that within that area of spectrum, they are essentially the same
thing called "chair". This is stereotyping.
While this is not a problem for chairs, this can be a social problem for
many situations like race, gender, politics, philosophy, etc.. When in
reality it is a world of spectrum, you project these generalized grid and
demarcation by using language. Yet language is a powerful communication
tool. As with anything powerful, there are powerfully good aspects and there
are powerfully bad aspects. What I strive to do is to use it carefully,
realizing what it does to my own perception of the world.
This is part of why I say the truth is impossible. I sincerely believe that
your position on this war may be right, and mine wrong. Just because you win
an argument or lose an argument, or just because you can explain your
position, or you can't, does not equate to being right or wrong. That is
just a matter of skill you acquire. "The Truth" is a very personal thing. It
being personal, it ceases to be "the truth", that is, absolute truth.
Best Regards,
Dyske
on 1/31/03 4:22 AM, Michael Szpakowski at szpako@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Dyske I do have to say that I find it extraordinary that someone who
> rejects the notion of truth should be so convinced that "everyone is
> prejudiced to a degree", which of course I accept as a truth in the general
> formulation which you give, although I certainly would reject the stronger
> version you implied earlier that everyone is to some degree racist. Racism is
> not a biological fact or urge but a construct and not a value free construct
> but a specific social, political and historical phenomenon which arose at the
> same time as the slave trade. The point that I have been making piecemeal in
> reply to your posts is once again borne out here: that in the very mails in
> which you reject "truth" you smuggle in by the back door assertions which you
> assume to be "true" and this finds its most radical form in your last mail
> when you reject effectively any possibilty of doing science, for by your
> argument applications in technology can happen not because we "know" something
> but actually by the merest of chances and therefore knowledge of the actual
> workings of any technology will remain forever out of our grasp. I hope I've
> made it plain that I reject this position entirely -it's reductio ad absurdam
> is a position of extreme solipsism in which we can know nothing about the
> world, not even that our senses are not systematically deceiving us about
> *everything*. Now, gripping as all this is we have moved a long way from the
> discussion of the impending war. I'm sorry that you adopt a position of
> neutrality about that - I believe you are mistaken in this - you strike me as
> a humane and decent human being and I certainly don't wish to impute evil
> motives to you in this matter ( as I certainly do for example in the case of
> Bush and Blair). I do continue to believe that your argument engenders the
> most dangerous passivity and for me " philosophers have explained the world -
> the point however is to change it" , so, fun as it is chatting to you I think
> as far as the broader philosophical canvas is concerned I will have to agree
> to differ with you. On the matter of the impending war I am happy to continue
> the discussion on matters of fact, although I feel this could be hampered to
> an extent by your rejection of such an animal! Michael
>
> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
I tell my friends that everything I say is either a gross generalization or
a Christo-size blanket statement. It is a joke but at the same time I mean
it. Whenever we use language, we must generalize. I use the word "chair" to
point to a particular chair in my room; that is a generalization. There is a
spectrum of chair-ness, and at some point it ceases to be chair and becomes
couch, stool, or bench. At what point it shifts is subjective. So, when you
use the word "chair", you are generalizing a certain area of chair-ness and
claiming that within that area of spectrum, they are essentially the same
thing called "chair". This is stereotyping.
While this is not a problem for chairs, this can be a social problem for
many situations like race, gender, politics, philosophy, etc.. When in
reality it is a world of spectrum, you project these generalized grid and
demarcation by using language. Yet language is a powerful communication
tool. As with anything powerful, there are powerfully good aspects and there
are powerfully bad aspects. What I strive to do is to use it carefully,
realizing what it does to my own perception of the world.
This is part of why I say the truth is impossible. I sincerely believe that
your position on this war may be right, and mine wrong. Just because you win
an argument or lose an argument, or just because you can explain your
position, or you can't, does not equate to being right or wrong. That is
just a matter of skill you acquire. "The Truth" is a very personal thing. It
being personal, it ceases to be "the truth", that is, absolute truth.
Best Regards,
Dyske
on 1/31/03 4:22 AM, Michael Szpakowski at szpako@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Dyske I do have to say that I find it extraordinary that someone who
> rejects the notion of truth should be so convinced that "everyone is
> prejudiced to a degree", which of course I accept as a truth in the general
> formulation which you give, although I certainly would reject the stronger
> version you implied earlier that everyone is to some degree racist. Racism is
> not a biological fact or urge but a construct and not a value free construct
> but a specific social, political and historical phenomenon which arose at the
> same time as the slave trade. The point that I have been making piecemeal in
> reply to your posts is once again borne out here: that in the very mails in
> which you reject "truth" you smuggle in by the back door assertions which you
> assume to be "true" and this finds its most radical form in your last mail
> when you reject effectively any possibilty of doing science, for by your
> argument applications in technology can happen not because we "know" something
> but actually by the merest of chances and therefore knowledge of the actual
> workings of any technology will remain forever out of our grasp. I hope I've
> made it plain that I reject this position entirely -it's reductio ad absurdam
> is a position of extreme solipsism in which we can know nothing about the
> world, not even that our senses are not systematically deceiving us about
> *everything*. Now, gripping as all this is we have moved a long way from the
> discussion of the impending war. I'm sorry that you adopt a position of
> neutrality about that - I believe you are mistaken in this - you strike me as
> a humane and decent human being and I certainly don't wish to impute evil
> motives to you in this matter ( as I certainly do for example in the case of
> Bush and Blair). I do continue to believe that your argument engenders the
> most dangerous passivity and for me " philosophers have explained the world -
> the point however is to change it" , so, fun as it is chatting to you I think
> as far as the broader philosophical canvas is concerned I will have to agree
> to differ with you. On the matter of the impending war I am happy to continue
> the discussion on matters of fact, although I feel this could be hampered to
> an extent by your rejection of such an animal! Michael
>
> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
> What do you offer to teach?
The same issue that we have been discussing.
-Dyske
The same issue that we have been discussing.
-Dyske