SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Jesus was also criticized for speaking in parables.
> So you're in good company. But you must also realize
> that he got himself crucified.
A very instructive example. I did not know I was in that company.
But was it the style of what he said, or something of substance,
that irked the Romans in numbers and the Pharisees in droves?
No, I'm afraid the function of parabola is just to prolong
the inevitable crucifixation of our awarranted beliefs.
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> > Now, given my dedication and my duty to all of these disciplines,
> > all of which are part of my every working thought, and have been,
> > incrementally, if intermittently seriously, for thirty years now,
> > I would have to be a pathological sado-masochist if that was the
> > only mode of thinking that I ever engaged in or exercised others
> > with. So there must be room for different styles of thought and
> > expression, even within the straits of a single heart's desiring.
>
> We recognize that you have done a lot of hard work and study,
> and you often have valuable comments to contribute. But most
> of us have other sources of entertainment, and many of us feel
> that we are being "used" as a captive audience for a mode of
> entertainment that is not of our choosing. You have a right
> to express yourself as you like, but no one has a right to
> force their expressions on communication channels that are
> intended for other purposes.
>
> > Perhaps it is a question of alternative bases of culture, dialect, education,
> > or just plain fancy, but where I come from it would be regarded as downright
> > rude to read a story to somebody and then to tell what it means, before they
> > should have a chance to think it over for themselves.
>
> Most subscribers to SUO list do not regard it as a place
> for "story telling" or entertainment. We all appreciate
> a good joke or an interesting anecdote, but we have work
> to do. We subscribe to SUO list because it is related to
> our jobs, and we can't afford to spend time on puzzles
> written by people who want to "express themselves".
>
> > All in all, I am genuinely sorry that you find so much
> > permanent distraction in the secondary characterictics
> > of style that are meant to be such transient diversion,
> > but my observation of human nature, generally speaking,
> > tells me that those who seek distraction usually do so
> > for reasons of their own heart's desiring, and so that
> > is a good place to look for a piece of the explanation.
>
> We don't mind your diverting yourself in any way you see fit,
> but many of us would rather not have the communication channels
> filled with distractions that are not of our own choosing.
>
> John Sowa
John,
Most of what you say in the rest of this criticism twists
my words way outside even their very wide track. If that
is something that you consider to be a fair summary of my
contribution here, then I would be better to be on my way.
The immediate context of discourse was concerned with the
narrative character of ontologies, such as we find in the
creation stories of various peoples, and although that is
a topic of interest to me, my immediate thoughts about it
were occasioned by a couple of remarks that other members
of the group, currently in good standing, introduced into
the discussion. The etymological rendering of "ontology"
as "story about what is" or "tale of being" is not wholly
out of place when played as it lies within this framework.
I have made participation in the SUO group my volunteer
work for almost a year now, at what seems, at times, to
pose a considerable risk to myself and to my own career.
There are only a few things that would make this course
a rational choice. One would be if I believed there to
some component of congruence between my life's aims and
the espoused ends of the SUO community, in the metaphor
that I learned long ago, if the projection of a group's
apparent or intended direction along the axis of one of
my constitutional eigenvectors turns out to be non-null.
But this is rarely ever as straightforward a problem in
real life as it is posed to be in mathematics, and so I
will not delay you with all of the details at this time.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤