[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[John Carl]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:07 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
wrote:


John said to dmb:

Right.  These important issues should be left to the experts. Who is the
expert on the dollar?  Who does determine what a buck is worth, anyway?    I
dunno.



dmb says:

Nobody gets to determine the value of a dollar. That's the point. Like the
meaning of words, the value of currency is determined by everybody in a
collective process.


John:


Ok dave, let's try and be as clear as possible, and construe honestly.  I
will if you will.  But even so, you must see that you're equating "nobody"
with "Everybody", logically speaking, in your statement there, and I think
pro philosophers ought to be a bit more precise and clear than that.


What you must mean, is no individual gets to decide on her own, the value of
a dollar, but each participates in the decision-making process, by their
actions of choice on what "dollars" they are going to accept for any
particular thing.


I believe we both understand this to be true.  But do we both understand
that this entity - this subject which is our object of inquiry, is not the
same things as "nobody"?  Since you used the term, I think you oughta
clarify it for us.  What exactly do you mean by "Nobody gets to determine
the value of a dollar".


It almost seems like you say it that way, because you don't.  And since it's
not-dmb, it's nobody.


But I'm not sure if that's fair construing...


dmb:


That's what it means to be a form of currency. The scope of their context
and sheer number of influential factors is such that single person could
ever hope to control the thing.



John:


sigh.  Well, that sure clears it up nicely.  "such that single person could
ever hope to control the thing."  I could try real hard and construe that
sentence, but I'll just err on the side of brusqueness and assume that I was
correct, and you don't mean "nobody", you mean, no single individual by
themselves.


In which case, you oughta know you're really barking up the wrong tree with
a Roycean.  "Individuals by themselves" is an ontological impossibility.


And about as SOM in essence, as you can get, to a Pirsigian.



John said:

...you see, even simple and clear messages such as you sent right there,
need some generous construing, if we're gonna have communication.  A "nord
wazi" dave? I mean, you do have speel chek, doncha?



dmb says:

I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll explain that "nord wazi" is just
"word nazi" with the first letters switched around. I mixed them up because
that's the kind of playful thing a word nazi would never allow.



John:


ahh,... you were using it ironically.  Well that's fine.  And I hate to get
all "grammer policia" on ya dave, but you're supposed to use quotes to
designate ironic speech.  And if you're lecturing the audience at the time,
on formal meaning, logic, accuracy and knowledge... well, just use some
correctness then.


And I did purposely misspeel myself,  if you wanna take it that way.  Fine.


Interestingly, I've learned that there is a style difference in the way
quotations are used, from an argument between Platt and Arlo, I looked it
up.  The british have differing conventions on the use of the single, vs.
the double quote.


little things, but interesting to a fan of grammatical minutiae.


I think 'nerd wazzi" is a cool term.  I'll buy it.  How much?


dmb:


 So, yea, I have a spell checker. But if I didn't I could just get one.
Unfortunately, there is no software you can download to get a sense of
humor. If you don't have one of those, I really couldn't tell you how or
where to get one.


John:


yeah.  i know THAT.  You'd probably be pretty much the last person I'd ask
that question dave.


I think Horse is working on an AI app, that will humour-check all incoming
posts, but it's in beta-beta-max, and will probably never go public.


dmb:


Anyway, have you ever noticed the similarity between the terms "community"
and "communicate"? Or how about the relationship between "common" and
"communal" and "communication"?


John:


dave, dave, dave.  you are so earnest and so obtuse...


ummm... yes.  I have actually considered the relationship between all your
beloved commie pre-fixations.  Am one myself.  Got the t-shirt to prove it.
I don't know if you ever noticed this, but I actually have some pretty
strong attachment to Absolute Pragmatism, which formulates this very idea of
the Great Community.    An inspiration to Harvard types, who went out and
formed the league of Nations.  And when that didn't work out too well,
forgot all about Royce and Idealistic philosophies of Community.


And it's certainly never worked out well for me.  I seem to be the kind of
guy who touts something I can't ever enjoy.  Weird.


But to answer your question, yes.  I believe the roots of "community" and
'communication" are highly SIGNificant and meaningful.  I'm pretty much a
fan of CS Peirce on this issue at least.


dmb:



I think my point is already obvious to you by now. Clearly, I'm saying that
dictionaries are part of a communist plot to destroy your freedom of speech.


John:

Your point is hardly obvious from your words.  You're always so cagey and
carefull and nervous.


For instance:

I think you're being sarcastic, here but I'm not completely sure. There is a
fascinating aspect to social control of meaning - The  Orwellian Giant
promoting thoughts and reactions via the kind of words and meanings
allowed.  It crops up in our fearful fantasies.


But my mantra for that issue is an old one - dot communism.  I'm an
open-source oriented guy.  Throw out all controls, and let the people
network freely and it will all work out quite naturally.  Even industry can
be de-centralized, with intellectual evolution scattered but connected.


if there's any doubt, more explanations and dialogue can be brought in.
It's an infinite process, dave.  And that's not just 'a" good thing, it's
'the" good thing, in the end.



John the dot-communist