XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Wilson  wrote:   
   > On 11/6/2016 2:51 AM, noname wrote:   
   >> Julian  wrote:   
   >>> On 06/11/2016 08:21, noname wrote:   
   >>>> Julian  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 06/11/2016 01:15, noname wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The other thing you do when you "outline a plan" is to spell out the   
   rules   
   >>>>>> through which your opponents can cheat.  A plan is almost as bad as a   
   >>>>>> treaty.  Good trades are cash, not promises.  Obligations are the kiss   
   of   
   >>>>>> death.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There an element of that happening in the UK where the "Remoaners"   
   >>>>> trying everything they can to thwart the Brexit result by trying   
   >>>>> to have the government spell out their plans for the Brexit   
   >>>>> negotiations with the EU before they begin. It's not good poker   
   >>>>> to show your opponents all your cards at the start of a hand.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course the criticism that they government doesn't have a fully   
   >>>>> formed plan is not entirely invalid but it is not the fault of   
   >>>>> the current leadership but fully the fault of the previous leadership   
   >>>>> who called the referendum without any thought for what would   
   >>>>> happen if they lost, as they did.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I've never really understood the parliamentary structure or process.  The   
   >>>> idea of a vote of confidence makes some sense, but the details escape me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not that it seems to matter much, no matter what the rules might be, there   
   >>>> will be those who find ways to cheat through them.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, the mere existence of rules opens the door to cheaters...   
   >>> in fact, the rules create cheaters.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Although it sounds somewhat odd to say that "rules create cheaters", it's   
   >> the literal truth, since rules create the framework within which cheating   
   >> can occur.   
   >   
   > Some have said that codified rules and written laws can be destructive.   
   > That also seems to run counter to common sense. But it does work that   
   > way. When we choose to value the letter of the law and ignore the   
   > intentions of and reasons for the law, then cheaters will flourish.   
   >   
   > It's the difference between working with the principles of the universe   
   > and adhering to the minutia of thousand page legal treatises.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I have some hypotheses about how the cogs will turn around the current US   
   >> election, with one party saying enough to make intent clear without stating   
   >> it, the other declaring the intention of remaining in lock-step with what   
   >> has been shown by many administrations not to work.  The vote, presuming it   
   >> to be legitimate, will be a statement of the people's desires.  We know how   
   >> trustworthy desire is.   
   >   
   > The human creature has largely evolved to value safety.  The question   
   > for most is deciding which choice offers the surest path to that value.   
   >   
   >   
      
   I can't argue with that, but if the human creature cannot suck up the guts   
   to move past striving toward the totally illusory concept of "safety",   
   maybe it'll go the way of the dinosaur, and maybe that would be no great   
   loss to the universe, all those funny man-bones to dig up and place   
   alongside the human-religious-objects like cellphones, our betters-to-come   
   may spend many enjoyable hours wondering why such a creature failed.  There   
   is no such thing as safety, only too-tepid versions of temporary safety,   
   except for those who make the world safe by losing their fear of all things   
   known to the State Of California to be unsafe, or worse, not nice.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)