From: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 94 03:19:52 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Are "they" really the enemy? (fwd)
Message-ID: <6149@aiki.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


message forwarded at John's request follows:

> From jdblair@tenagra.sas.muohio.edu Mon Aug 15 20:51:15 1994
> Received: from post.demon.co.uk by aiki.demon.co.uk with SMTP
> 	id AA6112 ; Mon, 15 Aug 94 20:51:06 BST
> Received: from post.demon.co.uk via puntmail for jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk;
>           Tue, 16 Aug 94 03:29:21 GMT
> Received: from tenagra.sas.muohio.edu by post.demon.co.uk id aa07959;
>           16 Aug 94 4:10 GMT-60:00
> Received: by phoenix.aps.muohio.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
>           id AA13160; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 23:10:53 -0400
> From: Shalder Flow <jdblair@tenagra.sas.muohio.edu>
> Message-Id: <9408160310.AA13160@phoenix.aps.muohio.edu>
> Subject: Re: Are "they" really the enemy?
> To: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 23:10:52 -0400 (EDT)
> In-Reply-To: <6011@aiki.demon.co.uk> from "Jim Dixon" at Aug 15, 94 05:23:43 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 3835      
> Status: R
> 
> > 
> > In message <940815.080301.3B8.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org> "Roy M. Silvernail" writes:
> > > > I am an agnostic.  I don't believe that 'they' exist.  I believe that
> > > > you have a system staffed by a random selection of the American
> > > > population, somewhat skewed because people have some control over
> > > > what area they work in.  To work with a system, you need to understand
> > > > it objectively, you need something more than incantations.
> > > 
> > > You've been pressing this point for some time.  I think the fundamental
> > > flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming the system to be the sum
> > > of its parts.  That's not the case, though.
> > 
> > What I said was : "to work with a system, you need to understand it
> > objectively".  Then your reply was : "the fundamental flaw in your
> > reasoning is ..."
> > 
> > I did not 'reason', I said that it was necessary to reason rather than
> > shout incantations.  You then proceed to reason, and I of course have
> > no objection to this:
> 
> Incantations!  Hocus-Pocus!  Eye of newt and head of toad!
> 
> I've been watching this for a bit (I lurk here a lot) and this discussion 
> is really interesting.  I have some questions.  How are we going to 
> understand the system objectively?  By objectively do you mean logically, 
> mechanistically, magically?  Its clear you can't seperate yourself from 
> "the system," even the "government system" as a member of this country.  
> Sure, you can not vote, not participate, and try to observe it, but we're 
> all part of those average americans that you point out make up the 
> government.
> 
> > 
> > > In _Systemantics_, John Gall conducts a very interesting examination of
> > > man-made systems and their behavior.  He notes that all man-made systems
> > > exhibit certain traits, among them growth, encroachment and promulgation
> > > of intra-system goals.  Your observation on the people employed by
> > > government may be right on target, but it doesn't take into account the
> > > entity of government itself.  This entity cannot be touched,
> > > communicated with or coerced.
> 
> I'll have to check out this book-- it sounds very interesting.  I'm
> bothered by the statement "all man-made systems." I find it hard to
> believe that such generalizations can be made.  Is it all man made 
> systems of a certain size?  Of Western philosophical culture?  Does my 
> family exhibit these traits?  My circle of friends?  I must read this 
> book myself to fully understand you point.
> 
> > 
> > I more or less agree.  Now apply your arguments to this list as a
> > man-made system.
> > 
> 
> OK, I should have read along a bit farther.
> 
> > > Put another way, even though every person within the system may be a
> > > "good man", the system itself isn't necessarily good.
> > 
> > I agree.  But recall that I never spoke of goodness; I just said that
> > the people who work for the government are pretty much a random
> > assortment of Americans.  On the other hand, there have been several
> > heated statements to the effect that 'all lawyers are X' and 'all
> > government employees are Y'.  It is this that I disagree with the most.
> > 
> 
> Makes sense... you dislike generalizations based on occupation.
> 
> > > I'm sure part of this is a cultural difference, given your .uk address.
> > > The US Gov't probably looks better from outside than it does from
> > > within.
> > 
> 
> [the rest filled with well stated personal opinions based on experience 
> refuting the above statement]
> 
> So what do we do?  It seems we've pretty much agreed that governments are 
> beasts beyond anyone's control, but so is _society_.  So is the entire 
> human population.  Where do we start?  If, or based on the words of many 
> on this list, we tear down the government, will we understand the 
> resultant human-made system any better?
> 
> yes, lots of questions and little statement... now fill my head with 
> enlightenment.
> 
> -john.
> 
> 
>