[MD] Trust in Philosophy

[John Carl]

Well, I'm the opposite of you Matt.  I used to disagree but I've since
changed my mind.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Dave used to suggest as much, and I used to agree.
>
>


> > Trust doesn't travel by email. Without trust there is no worthwhile
> debate.
> > You and Dave (and a few others) need to be in the same room with a
> > pint of beer (or a poker in hand, maybe, knowing when to put the poker
> > down).
> >
> > Ian
>
>
John:

Trust is built through communication and communication can flow just fine
through this medium.  It was practically made for it.  In fact, in packet
programming, "trusted host" has a very well understood meaning.    Any
medium of communication has its shortcomings but these can always be dealt
with if the motivation is there.

It's interesting this comes from Ian, because even though he hasn't
communicated much with me, I trust him because I appreciate his themes,
memes and ideas.  However, he doesn't trust me for some reason so this issue
is moot -  dialogue is  impossible if trust doesn't flow both ways.  In
fact, I'd say it's easier to have a dialogue when there is equal distrust on
both sides, than when one side is trusting and the other side is not. Me and
dmb, for instance.   The rules for dialogue under the cloud of evidently
bilateral distrust are easily understood and followed, but when the trust is
unequal, there are no real basis for any common protocols at all.

Yer tcp doesn't quite ip, so to speak.

But then, what do I know, I'm just a troll.

John