From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:10:03 +0000, Kevin Calder wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   what about an extremely simple one?  not a tribal gig (people seem to   
   start thinking spears and war chants whenever u use the word tribal) but a   
   nice smallish agrarian society..   
      
   not sure.. but i'm thinking it would be pretty peaceful.   
      
      
      
   >>  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.  ;)   
      
   i have been working very hard on not going where u just did.  heh .. not   
   that i mind.. its just.. well we'll get lost very quickly.   
      
      
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>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?   
      
   bah! i hate semantic debate.. its for pussies.  theres 2 uses for it..   
      
   1. to actually clarify what people are talking about and create a useful   
   framework for discussion   
   2. to nitpick unimportant details and save face.   
      
   its #2 really that ticks me off.   .. then again.. my dorm days are long   
   behind me and i have always been a terrible student.   
      
      
   > 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*.   
   >   
      
   ok, fair enough.  i do get really impatient with ur typical academic   
   blubbering bullshit though.. dot the t's and cross the i's, whatever gets   
   it done.. IMO many people use that sort of argument to cover up the fact   
   that they have no idea what thier talking about.   
      
   not all, of course.. and yeah, u have a point.   
      
      
   >>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?   
   >   
      
   well.. i don't think so.. evolution is spread over millions of years, at   
   the least.  so.. i think that makes it an unrecognizable time scale by   
   human standards..   
      
   u can say the numbers but none of us are ever going to expierence a   
   milennia, let along a million.  not mystical.. just really really big.   
      
   so big it might not appear to be moving at all.. but its just going foward   
   very slowly.   
      
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)