From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk   
      
   In message , alias   
    writes   
   >On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:42:42 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:   
      
      
      
   >> If peace is to be finally achieved, it must be via an educated   
   >> understanding of the nature of conflict (and thus the absence of it,   
   >> peace).   
      
   >the understanding of conflict is not necessary for peace.   
      
   Fair enough, I can imagine that there could exist an advanced society (I   
   can think of any 'naturally' occurring peaceful configurations) which   
   has been peaceful for so long that lack of necessity has caused the   
   notions of 'peace' and 'conflict' to drop out of usage and common   
   memory.   
      
   This unlikely example is, however, as close as I can get to imagining a   
   peaceful society which has no understanding of conflict.   
      
   >  this is similar   
   >to saying that an understanding of mass is needed for gravity.   
      
   Well, an understanding of some descriptive scheme is required for *you*   
   to talk about, or even quietly contemplate gravity.  Without some kind   
   of linguistic structure, inherited from Newton, Einstein or String   
   Theory and massless, spin-2 gravitons, your totally fucked when it comes   
   to talking about or thinking about gravity.  You might 'feel it' without   
   *some kind* of understanding but you couldn't know it.  And you wouldn't   
   be able to discern it from accelerated motion :p   
      
   >  brute   
   >facts simply *exist* independant of ur opinion of them.  get used to it..   
   >its not changing any time soon.   
      
   Well, 'brute probabilities' more like.  And even they are arguably   
   mediated by your 'opinions'.  There can be no unmediated contact with   
   objective reality.  Get used to it.  Its not changing any time soon.  ;)   
      
      
      
   >not true.. unless ur going to mire us in a discussion of definitions and   
   >nonsense along those lines.. clearly the intent was to suggest that we   
   >(human beings) are in a constant state of evolution..   
      
   Arguments about definitions should IMHO be a prerequisite of any   
   argument!  If argument's about definitions are to be lumped in with   
   'nonsense' then who's infallible definitions are we all to agree with?   
   Yours?  Websters?   
      
   And if you don't get your definitions straight (sneaking past deferance   
   as much as possible) then you can't claim that "clearly the intent was   
   blah de blah" because its really not that clear at all!  You may never   
   assemble a conclusive, universally applicable definition by arguing   
   about it, but at least you and the person you are arguing with will   
   improve your understanding of what each of you *mean*.   
      
   >evolution, being a process that takes place on a time scale beyond ur   
   >objective reckoning, may not appear to be ongoing.. but yeah, it is.   
      
   Can we still call it 'evolution' then if say it were only 'taking place'   
   over an infinite amount of time, or even a time scale that renders it   
   unrecognisable 'as we know it'.  Isn't that making it all a bit   
   mystical?   
      
   ...   
      
   Uh, robots, trench-coats and rain on neon!   
      
   zip,   
   --   
   Kevin Calder   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)