Re: IEDSRI Translation

["Stuart M. Castergine" <scasterg@cd.columbus.oh.us>]

On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 DSearch@aol.com wrote:

> IED sez: 
> << ..."critical" Love-Hounds postings... are, more often than not, too-hasty
> expressions of the writers' fleeting personal preferences... ...everyone has
> an equal right to a voice in the public information-stream; but that doesn't
> mean that we should... all spill our ids out into that already roiling
> current armed with a false confidence that whatever we say must be of value
> simply because we have said it... Have our customs of public discourse really
> declined to such an extent that any writer's pronouncement about any subject
> at all must be received with perfect equanimity.. no matter how flippant or
> flimsy that pronouncement might be?>>
> 
> Here, IED has concluded that he either doesn't like or agree with my original
> comments.  Additionally, not only does he consider my points to be invalid,
> he is implying that they are the product of a lesser intellect because they
> are different than his own.  Or the criteria I used as the basis for my
> comments were different than and thus inferior to his own.  He does it
> charmingly, but make no mistake -- this _is_ his communication.
> 

Now, that's not how I take what he's saying at all. I don't gather 
anything from the above about IED's opinion of your intellect, either 
explicitly or implicitly.

He certainly does imply that your assertion was flippant or flimsy. But
even the most intelligent of us occasionally make flippant or flimsy
assertions. The point I believe he was trying to make was adequately
demonstrated by your follow-up post. You believe your assertion to have
value simply because you have said it. Thus, correspondingly, when someone
claims your assertion has no value, you take it as a personal attack
because the value of the assertion is inextricably linked to your personal
worth. 
	
Such is not actually the case.

I say all sorts of silly, ill-considered things. But that in no way 
lessens the fact that I am a strikingly shining example of human 
intelligence (tongue planted firmly in cheek, there, OK? Well, maybe not. 
I am rather fond of myself).

So IED said your opinion was a load of horse hockey? Big deal. It's his 
right. But don't take it as a personal attack on your intelligence.

The point IED was trying to make is that this is a risk we take when we 
subject our opinions to public scrutiny. People may disagree with them. 
It's no cause to get and start swearing at people and saying "Boo Hoo. 
IED thinks I'm stupid because I don't like _Lionheart_! He's soo mean!"

You gave a subjective opinion, and you assert that since it is a 
subjective opinion it neither has nor needs to have "substantive, 
substantiating argument" to support it. Well, that kind of puts a damper 
on discussion, doesn't it? Since we can't talk about reasons behind the 
subjective opinion, the conversation can go about this far:

Dsearch: Lionheart sucks! (just using this as an example, not meant to 
reflect the opinions of the actual person).

IED: No it doesn't! Your opinion sucks!

Case closed, since we can't discuss *reasons* for our opinions.

Who's right? Both. Neither. Who cares?

So, I see some value to what IED said about spilling our IDs. Public
discourse has to be able to progress beyond. "Hello World! This is my
opinion! It's mine and I have a right to it, so don't criticize it!" To do
that, we have to be able to discuss the possible sources of our subjective
impressions and yes, gasp, even talk about providing "substantive,
substantiating argument(s)" for them. 

If you want to have an opinion go unchallenged, keep it to yourself. Put 
it out on the net were several million people can read it and they are 
going to pick it apart. Deal with it.

Love,
Stu

P.S. You are entirely missing the point of conversing with IED. In the old 
days did you ever play around with one of those pseudo-AI programs like 
Eliza? Talking to IED about Kate Bush (the only subject he's programmed 
for) is sort of like talking to Eliza, no offense to IED intended. If you 
tell Eliza "I'm having feelings of inferiority" and Eliza responds. 
"Don't you think you're getting a little too concerned about your 
feelings of inferiority?" you don't get mad at Eliza, because it's *just 
a machine*.

Now, when you say "I don't like Lionheart." And IED disagrees with you,
and even questions your mental stability and your hearing, you aren't
supposed to get mad at IED, because that's what everyone *expects* IED to
say. It's *programmed in*. Getting mad at IED for saying it would be 
silly, like ranting to someone about how that Eliza program should have 
its license to practice psychology taken away.

Look, I'll demonstrate:

I've always thought "Between a Man and a Woman" is just an incredibly 
weak, cliche-ridden song. It's an embarrassment that Kate even wrote it. 
I cringe every time I hear it and the only time I listen to it is when 
I'm too lazy to go hit the "next track" button on the CD player."

Watch this space. ;-)


scasterg@dispatch.com == Stuart M. Castergine        |              ---
All young gentle dreams drowning                     | "Mmm, yes."   |/
In life's grief                                      |               |\
Can you hang on to me? --Kate Bush, _Big Stripey Lie_|