Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Surely you Jest.
Message-ID: <1683@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 23:10:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1683
Posted: Thu Sep 12 23:10:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 03:26:20 EDT
References: <406@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 51


	John, your assertions that unicorn means one and only
one thing are a feeble and futile attempt to set a universal 
context and force everyone to your style of thought. As I stated
before, there exists a secondary meaning which lends more 
flexibility to it's interpretation.  A unicorn can be thought of
as a horse.  Why won't you give up your personal definition of
unicorn and accept mine, which others in this newsgroup have
accepted?  Other speakers of the language, you say?  Who cares about
such riffraff...

> 	Regulations are necessary to stabilize the environment. 
> Social systems only function within certain environmental 
> margins. Minimal interference is a very indirect way of looking 
> at it. Certain types of interference ( or influence, interference
> having " bad " implications . . . ) are actually promoted. For 
> example: Schools. The basic idea is to raise the standard of 
> living. Unregulated interference is transposed to subtlety, where
> free will then allows a choice of alternatives. What this means 
> is that you are free until such time as the alternatives can be 
> determined to no longer be considered arbitrary. It is then that
> culture achieves a degree of coherence, and the stable concepts 
> and ideals gain acceptance. Interference should always be allowed 
> at some transposed level of interaction, simply so different 
> concepts are allowed to compete for acceptance. When a 
> singularity becomes evident, it is adopted.

The point is that apparently when you "accept" such interference as
ipso facto legit, you have lost sight of all of your goals.  Are the
goals to get people to obey the rules, or are they to set up rules
that will do the most for the most people?

> 	Standards and regulations are necessary to promote 
> cooperation. They represent alternatives that have been 
> demonstrated to be non arbitrary.

See above.

> 	You show two remarkable extremes, Rich. First, you state 
> that freedom doesn't exist, and second, you promote a policy that
> considers freedom to be highest priority. I hope you recognize 
> these idealisms. You are becoming an experienced juggler.

Not at all.  It is precisely because my experiences lead me to be a 
certain way, and thus to have certain needs and wants, that I feel
that the purpose of society MUST be to accommodate the needs of all such
people, rather than to forcefit us into a mold that is "best" (short term
only, of course) for "society".
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr