RE: virus: How Does a Shaman Pay?

Brett Lane Robertson (unameit@tctc.com)
Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:30:29 -0500

>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:27:33 -0500
>To: "Gifford, Nate F" <giffon@SDCPOS3B.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
>From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
>Subject: RE: virus: How Does a Shaman Pay?
>
>" I think you are applying value judgements to natural selection which I
>consider to be a fallacy. I would think of natural selection as a chaotic
>process, so that trying to imply any kind of value to its results is
>fruitless."
>
>There is no value to chance development. I do not buy into a selection
process which operates on chance. I buy into a developmental model which
says that things develop--like rivers develop, into more intricate
patterns--not because they compete, but because it is efficient for rivers
to branch (Darwin had to devise a new way for things to "develop"...they
just "mutate" he said...that's akin to spontaneous generation, saying that
flys develop from rotting meat through mutation...I think the theory is
flawed). I do see a place for competition, though...in destroying those
things which are not efficient...through the "un" natural "de" selection of
the theory of "destruction of the least fit" (Darwinism). I don't think
that will or judgement has anything to do with it as it is a
cooperative--and not a competive--system. I haven't implied "value (which
is arbetrary human judgment)", I have applied efficiency and applicability
(the scientific standards of replication and validity).
>
>Brett
>
>At 04:39 PM 8/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Words don't mean whatever YOU say.... unless YOU say so ... in which case I
>>again bow to your superior intellect.
>
>>1. Superior is not the same as successful.
>
>>2. Circumstantial success is tautological. Which was superior .. more
>>successful ... whatever ... the Chinese empire or the Roman empire? <Which
>>is superior western civilization or eastern civilization>. Which is
>>superior Bacteria or insects?
>
>>3. I am sorry if my sarcasm - although I'd label it satire - bothered you.
>> I think you are applying value judgements to natural selection which I
>>consider to be a fallacy. I would think of natural selection as a chaotic
>>process, so that trying to imply any kind of value to its results is
>>fruitless.
>

Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.

KEN KESEY