Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: WHAT DEFAULT?
Message-ID: <432@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 22:15:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.432
Posted: Sun Sep 15 22:15:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:45:32 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 57


     I think what we have here is a classic case of
misunderstanding. It appears as though we need to define two key
words that are thrown around this newsgroup with such vibrant
bias. I think these two words are conformity and objectivity.

     Let's start with the first. This usually has implications
toward some kind of standard. This, however, does not include a
definition of what that standard may be. I think that it is safe
to say that most standards are based upon some type of rational.

     The implications are that conformity depends upon your own
particular trust in that standard. For an intelligent decision to
conform, it is important that the reasons supporting a standard
are understood, and there exists agreement. This means that
conformity can not be considered an objective, but a result.

     Although the meaning of the word *CAN* be altered so that
conformity can be considered an objective, this perspective is
outside the human experience. This means care must be taken when
speaking objectively about conformity, because it is a process
that is alien to our normal perceptions.

     Now, objectivity. Objectivity can probably best be described
as percieving and interpretting from an unbiased perspective.
Naturally, this is idealistically impossible. ( RICH: I can claim
alot of the same things about objectivity that you claim about
free will. ) Objective analysis is very beneficial, but objective
definition can be dangerous as far as using terms that may not
directly relate to the anticipated perspective of the reader.

     Objective analysis is almost GOD-LIKE! The reader would
certainly not need to read if he considered himself a GOD! This
is especially relevent to new readers on the network. Objective
analysis can yield good results as long as there is a willingness
to clarify some of the quantum leaps that occur in terms of
protocol.

     If we are talking about a definition within a certain
context, ( our own! ) then it is permissable to transpose the
definition into objectivity. If, however, we are trying to define
a general purpose definition, then care must be taken that it
aligns with our actual perceptions.

     Objectivity is like taking a swing at GOD. ( however you
might define it ) The response you might get from such a
perspective can often be negative. We are not confined within a
closed group, and it is important to consider how our articles
will be interpretted.

     In short, I don't think it's safe to assume that the
protocol is objective. In many cases, the subjective aspect must
be considered in order to maintain expressive accuracy. In order
to communicate effectively, it is important to consider that
interpretation is usually traced along direct association with
known experience.
                                         JOHN.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com