[MD] Trust in Philosophy

[Ian Glendinning]

BTW ... the two Einstein quotes alluded to ...

"The communication problem is the illusion that it has occurred."
"Communication is like a cat, you pull the tail at one end and it
miaow's at the other, except their is no cat."

Ian

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt, John,
>
> Trust can be built - extended / tested - by electronic communication
> sure, but it needs some basis of trust outside the channel too. (I
> often point out that the top layer of the W3C Semantic Web
> architecture is "Trust" .... but that's just a record of trust
> established - recognizable authority of the source of a packet, etc
> ....)
>
> But to build real trust, I think you need to see into someone's eyes
> (soul) every now and again. But I agree with your essential point more
> communication is good, of any kind .... but the problem can be the
> "illusion of communication".
>
> Misunderstanding motives is the biggest risk ... as a minimum people
> accuse each other of not really trying to debate / agree, or worse.
> (And human psychology is ALL about interpreting the motives of
> others.)
>
> Anyway, me not trust you John ?
> That's a bit strong surely - I was wary of one of your motives in one
> exchange - but I don't feel like I don't trust you.
>
> Ian
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>