Re: virus: maxims and ground rules

Joe E. Dees (
Mon, 10 May 1999 01:15:18 -0500

Date sent:      	Sun, 09 May 1999 22:43:31 -0700
From:           	KMO <>
Organization:   	C-Realm
Subject:        	Re: virus: maxims and ground rules
Send reply to:

> Tim Rhodes wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 May 1999, KMO wrote:
> >
> > > [...] we don't have to use maxims to create the proposed
> > > framework, so I'm certainly not wedded to idea that our initial common ground
> > > has to be stated as a set of maxims
> >
> > Then why not call them "slogans" or "talking points" or "strange attractors"
> > or some other term more specific to the task, rather than simply consistant
> > with the rhetoric.
> Of those three, I like "talking points" best and "slogans" least, but I'd go with
> any of them if folks are getting hung up on the idea that maxims have to be true
> and that one of our proposed maxims is that there is no truth that isn't dependent
> on some specific framework and agenda.
> -KMO

Religions have dogmas, but that word is connotatively loaded with heavy vibes, as are to a lesser degree the terms principle, definition, assumption, premise, doctrine, law, rule and precept (although principle and precept are not too bad, IMHO). Theorem, lemma and conjecture sound too mathematical, although the last of these might be salvaged. Heuristic, which is a rule of thumb, is free of such baggage, but might put people off because of its esotericity relative to the masses. Talking points sounds like the propagandistic diarrhea of spin doctors, and strange attractors is, once again, esoteric, and would invoke in most people not catastrophy, chaos or complexity theory, nor even fractal dragons, but some kind of lollipop-laden pedophiles. Understandings might not be so bad; it has connotations of wisdom, sagacity and enlightenment which have a certain carrot quality. We could also fall back on the old reliable sayings or aphorisms (which last I kinda like, too).