BTW, Reed, I know you complained about "Logic Nazi", how it made you sick, and you didn't want to see your name associated with it . . . and for a while, I was going to oblige you on that, but then you said this odd thing,
This statement makes me a little wary. I stand by it. In needs to be resolute. But I feel the need to make this caveat: there is always a way to negotiate, one just has to be creative enough to find it. To engage in aggressive behavior is always an indictment of the aggressor. Yes, I recognize the irony in that statement. But sometimes you have to be resolute.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------
And it combined so meaningfully with that old post I dragged up of yours from January, that I think this connection needs to be driven home more. I think that it is very fitting to discuss your logic nazi with you. And though you waxed poetic and got all warm and fluffy about how logic was the "mother of faith" - I think it is that very kind of confusion, that leads to this logic nazi behavior.
Anyways, aside from the confesional testament, this was the real gem of that piece, I think.
>>We should feel good (experience satisfaction) when we agree and
feel bad when we disagree.<<
WHY???? I mean, I understand we all need *somebody* in the world to understand us, but I certainly see no point in seeking some philosophical union with all of humanity. I really even think that might be a *bad* thing. In the most abstract sense, every evolutionary system needs variation. When you lose that, it is no longer evolutionary.
Of course, really, they should all agree with me. ;-0
-Uber Mensch